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

-- ---

..........
Filed 04/07/2004 Page 1 of 23

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
I) Inn1111811110

Document 783-5

DE90- 004456

Infarm8tIon .. ow

SHUTDOWN REACTORS:

SPENT FUEL ACCEPTANCE SCENARIOS DEVOTED TO PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORY RICH LAND,

OCT 89

s. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Technical Information Service

0025
OCR

PA- 165043

... ...

---- ---.---- ---.---.-----

....

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 2 of 23
~i~I~~~~iu~fillllll
PNL-1143

UC.a12

Spent Fuel Acceptance Scenarios Devoted to Shutdown Reactors:
A Preliminary Analysis
T. W. Wood A. M. Plummer

D. G. Dippold S. M. Short

October 1989

Prepared for the U. S. Department of Energy
under Contr~ct DE-AC06. 16RLO

1830

P~clfic Northwest uboratory Oper~ted for the U. S. Department of Energy by B~ttelle Memorial Institute

. REPRODUCED BY

S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAl TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE SPRINGFIELD. VA. 22161

._u_-.-_u
OCR

0026

P A- 165044

.,
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

.- -.

...y

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 3 of 23

DISCLAIMER

This pros ram was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an asency of

Information, apparatuI, product, or prDCe.. disclosed, or '.pr....n" that

liability Dr responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or useful..... of any Its
Reference

the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any or their employees, makes any warranty, expre...d or Implied, or assumes IepI

specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or Imply Its en-

ute would not Infrlnle privately owned rip".

herein to any

dorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government of any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions

of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORY

operated by
BATIELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE

for the
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE.AC06-76RLO 1830
Printed In the United SUites of America

Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the

Office of Scientific and Technical 'nformation. P. O. 801162, Oak Ridge, TN 17831;
prices available from (615) 576-&401. frS 626-8401.

Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service. S. Oep.rtmentofCommerce. 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161.
NTIS Price Codes, Microfiche AO1

Prinled Copy

.!.un.
001~
026-050 051-075 076-100 101- 125 126-150 151-175 176-200 201-225 226-250 251.275 276-300

Price Codes
N12
AO3 AO4 AO5 AO6 AD7 AO8 AD9

A10 A11 A12 A13

OCR

0027

P A- 165045

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 4 of 23
PNl- 7143 UC- 812

SPENT FUEL ACCEPTANCE SCENARIOS DEVOTED TO

SHUTDOWN REACTORS: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

T. A. D. S.

W, M. G. M.

Wood Plummer (a) Dippold(a) Short

October 1989

the u. S.

Prepared for Department of Energy under Contract DE- ACO6- 76RlO 1830

Paci fi c Northwest Laboratory
Richland. Washington

99352

(a) Office of Transportation Systems Planning
Nucl ear Systems
Battelle Memorial Institute

Group

OCR

0028

P A- 165046

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 5 of 23

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Spent fuel acceptance schedules and the allocation of federal acceptance capacity among commercial nuclear power reactors have important operational

and cost consequences for reactor operators.

A1

ternat i ve all ocat i on

schemes

were investigated to some extent in DOE' s MRS Systems Study (DOE 1989a). The

current study supplements these analyses for a class of acceptance schemes in

which the acceptance capacity of the federal radioactive waste management (a) is allocated principally to shutdown commercial power reactors, and

system

extends the scope of analysis to include considerations of at.reactor cask

load i ng rates.

The ope rat i ona 1 consequences of these schemes for power reactors, as measured in terms of quant i ty of spent fuel storage requ i rement above storage
pool capacities and number of years of pool operations after last discharge,

are estimated, as are the associated utility costs. This study does not
attempt to examine the inter.uti1ity equity considerations involved in
departures from the current 01dest- fue1-

fi rst (OFF) all ocat ion ru1 e as

specified in the " Standard

Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or

High- level Radioactive Waste " (DOE 1988b). In the sense that the alternative a 11 ocat ions are more economi ca 11 y effi c i ent than OFF, however, they approximate the allocations that could result from free exchange of acceptance
rights among ut

inter.uti1 ity equity.

i1 it ies. Such

a process would result in the preservation of

This study shows that a scenario that grants exclusive spent fuel

acceptance rights to shutdown reactQrs in order ' of shutdown date could substant i a 11 y reduce the average time between 1 ast di scharge and comp 1 et i on
spent fuel removal for currently operating power reactors and those under

construction and expected to be completed. Implementing such a scheme, using

a strict " longest-shutdown- first"

priority rule, would require at.

reactor

cask loading rates in excess of prel iminary estimates of capabil ities.
(a) As presently planned by the DOE, this system would include a transporta-

geologie repositories.

tion element, a monitored retrievable storage faci1 ity,

and one or mo~e

iii

OCR , JKF

0029

PA- 165047

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 6 of 23

Because of the relative timing for reactor shutdown and federal acceptance as currently planned, this scenario would not fu1 ly utilize the spent fuel

acceptance capacity planned for the federal system. In addition. the requirements for additional at-reactor storage would be much greater under

such a scheme than under an all ocat i on of acceptance based on spent file 1
A modified shutdown priority scenario is developed that grants first

age.

priority to reactors with imminent storage capacity needs. second priority to

shutdown reactors, and third priority based on spent fuel age an~ individual

at-reactor cask loading constraints as currently estimated. This scenario is
. shown to have lower at-reactor storage impacts in terms of both capa~ity

requirements and average time between last discharge and fuel pickup than an

allocation based on age of spent fuel, and would fully utilize the . p1anned
acceptance capacity of the waste management system.

All of the scenarios studied would have some impact on the character.

istics of the spent fuel accepted. The
qualitative fashion.

effects of fuel characteristics on

transportation cask capacity and fleet requirements are treated here in a

OCR, JKF

0030

P A- 165048

. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ,.. .., ,. ., ...... .,. ... ........... , . . .... . , .
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 783-5 Filed 04/07/2004 Page 7 of 23

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. 0 INTRODUCTION

11 i

1.1

THE DECOMMISSIONING SEQUENCE FOR POWER REACTORS SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT

3. )

THE REFERENCE ACCEPTANCE SCENARIO
BASIC CONSIDERATIONS IN FORMULATING A SHUTDOWN PRIORITY ACCEPTANCE SCENARIO Spent Fuel Availability

2 At- Reactor Cask Loading Rate Constraints
OTHER ASSUMPTIONS

. 3,

Timing .

Repository Capacity and Second- Repository

Pool Capacity and Spent Fuel
All ocat i on of Acceptance

Inventory

Minimum Spent Fuel Age Since Discharge
Among Shutdown

Reactors .

Allocation of Residual Acceptance Capacity
Shipment Dedication and Size
Other Transportation Assumptions

SUMMARY OF CASES ANALYZED
ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS

FIGURES OF MERIT ASSOCIATED WITH AT .REACTOR STORAGE

Additional Storage Capacity.
Duration and Cost of Pool Operations After last

Discharge
RESUL IS OF ANAL YS IS

OCR

0031

P A- 165049

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 8 of 23

The Reference Case

Case 2 - A literal Construction of EDF
De 1 ayed Acceptance

Secondary Priorities
loading Rate Constraints

Sensitivity Cases

OTHER TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Transportation Co~t and Cask Capacity
Modal Mix Variations

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

0 REFERENCES
APPENDIX A - CUMULATIVE PROJECTED POOL AND DRY STORAGE INVENTORIES IN ORDER OF REACTOR SHUTDOWN

OCR

0032

P A- 165050

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 783-5 Filed 04/07/2004 Page 9 of 23

FIGURES

Schedule of Last Discharge Dates to Reactor Spent Fuel
Pool s . .

Spent Fuel Inventory Accumulation and Planned Acceptance

Distribution of Annual Rail Caskloadings for Case 1

Distribution of Annual Truck Caskloadings for Case 1 .
Distribution of Annual Rail Caskloadings for Case 2

4~ 7

Distribution of Annual Truck Caskloadings for Case 2 .
Distribution of Spent Fuel Age at Time of Shipment; Decommissioning and OFF Priorities Compared

Comparison of Rail Cask Fleet Requirements

Comparison of Truck Cask Fleet Requirements

vi i

OCR

0033

PA- 165051

.....................
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 783-5 Filed 04/07/2004 Page 10 of 23

TABLES

Derivation of Estimated Maximum Feasible Cask Loading Rates
Description of Cases Analyzed

Reactors Shari ng Pool s
Pool Maintenance Cost and logistics Impacts of Alternative

Acceptance Scenarios
Pickup Schedules and Quantities of Spent Nuclear Fuel Infeasible for Pickup in Case 2
Transportat ion Costs

Age and Burnup Distributions for Case 1

Age and Burnup Distributions for Case 2
Projected Inventory of Spent Fuel at Reactors at Time of

Shutdown .

vii i

OCR

0034

P A- 165052

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 11 of 23

INTRODUCTION

In June 1988, the U. S. Department of Energy s (DOE) Office of Civilian

Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) initiated a series of studies to provide
a technical basis for a re-eva1uation of OCRWM policy on development of a

monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facil ity. These studies covered several
topics, and are described in a summary report (DOE

1989a). Together, these

studies address the effects of various alternative MRS configurations, stor-

age capacities, and deployment dates on the functioning and cost of both the federal waste management system and spent fuel storage at commercial power

reactors. This analysis is framed comparatively, against a series of
reference cases for a system without an MRS facil ity. These

repository-only

cases include . cases with initial

facility operation in the year 2003 and

sensitivity cases for delayed repository development (as late 1$2013) and
for a repository emplacing intact rather than consolidated spent fuel.

In January 1989, testimony before the MRS Review Commission by the Environmenta1

Defense Fund (EDF) suggested that a val id comparative analysis of

an MRS facility should include a case in which a repository-only system was

formulated around " single,

dedicated shipping campaigns of fuel from each

reactor at the time of its decommissioning.

Previous comments on the

Ini-

tial Version Dry Cask Storage Study (DOE 1988a) suggested a system that

wou1d entail mostly single bulk shipping campaigns from each reactor
repository, preferably immediately after reactor decommissioning.

toa

While the

study on system storage conducted as part of DOE' s MRS Systems Study (Wood

et a1. 1989) included analysis of granting priority to decommissioning reac-

tors as an alternative to priority based on fuel age, the specific scenario

suggested had not been analyzed. The current study was initiated as a supplemental effort to analyze the specific scenario suggested by EOF, and to develop an acceptance scenario incorporating the general principles suggested

and resulting in low costs to uti1 ities.
The acceptance scenarios developed in this report involve allocations of
spent fuel acceptance rights other than the current olde~t- fuel-

fi rst (OFF)

allocation established by the . Standard
1.1

Contract for Disposal of Spent

Nuclear Fuel and/or High- Level Radioactive Waste " (DOE 1988b). Although

OCR

0035

PA- 165053

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 12 of 23

there is a provision in the Contract that provides for shutdown reactor
priority in acceptance allocations, this study does not advocate implementathe sense that the alternative allocations are more economically efficient than OFF,

tion of such a policy as an administrative action by the DOE. In

however, they approximate the allocations that could result from free

exchange of acceptance rights among utilities. Such a process would result in the preservation of inter-utility equity.
of the same figures of merit developed and applied in the evaluation of system storage
(Task G) and transportation (Task F) in the MRS Systems Study, and was con-

The eva uati on of system

effects in thi s study i nc 1 udes many

ducted by staff involved in these efforts, using essentially the same analysis

evaluation included 1) quantity, dura ti~n, and cost of at-reactor storage, 2) logistical feasibi1 ity and cost of spent fuel transportation, and 3) spent fuel characteristics. The study
developed these measures for several repository-only cases based on the general scheme described above, and compares them with the standard repository-

framework. Specific aspects of this

only reference case used in the MRS Systems Study. Although results presented here may be validly compared with MRS scenario results previously
reported, such compari

sons were not undertaken in thi s report.

The cost measures and other results reported herein are measures of

a result of alternative acceptance allocations. Some of these alternative acceptance allocations would result in the receipt of
younger spent fuel in the system than would an OFF allocation. The analysis of impacts of this younger fuel on the other elements of the system was
beyond the scope of this study, although aspects of this problem have been

uti1 ity impacts as

qual itatively

addressed for the transportation element of the system in

Section 4.

1. More detailed analysis of the impacts to the transportation

element, as well as analysis of impacts on the HRS and repository elements,

is ongoing. The results of the study reported herein provide important
information regarding aspects of various acceptance allocations with respect

to the transportation and waste generator elements of the system. However,
it is important to real ize that the reported cost impacts or savings to the

utilities from the allocation schemes developed in this report do not represent potential impacts on the entire waste management system.

1.2

OCR

0036

PA- 165054

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 13 of 23

THE DECOMMISSIONING SEQUENCE FOR POWER REACTORS

Spent fuel removal from a power reactor site is a necessary prerequisite

to site decommissioning. Although some alternative decommissioning sequences
involve storage of spent fuel at reactor sites for prolonged periods. spent

fuel removal is required prior to final closure of a

site. Thus. the sug-

gested removal of spent fuel " immediately after decommissioning " is interpreted in this report as immediately after shutdown (e. g., the last discharge

to a particular spent fuel pool). A
decommissioning "

reactor that has completed its last

discharge is referred to as " shutdown " in this report, and a reactor pool or

dry storage yard that serves only shutdown reactors is referred to as a
pool or yard.

A reference decommissioning sequence giving shipping priority to shut-

down reactors 5 years after last discharge was developed for Task G of the

MRS Systems Study (Wood et a1. 1989). For the current study. shipping priority was given to shutdown reactors immediately after last discharge with the

constraint that the spent fuel had to be cooled a minimum of a specified

number of years before it could be shipped. Schedules with 5- and 10- year
minimum ages were formulated.
Although the specifics of power reactor decommissioning pl ans remain to

be developed in most cases, projected dates of last discharge are available
based on operating license data, and were used as a basis for this study.

Figure 2. 1
pOD 1 s .

illustrates the schedule of last discharge dates for spent fuel

These dates assume a 40- year 1 i

fe after grant i ng of reactor

ope rat i ng

icense except incases where earl ier shutdowns

have already occurred.

OCR

0037

P A- 165055

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 14 of 23

ell

'i)

CJ)

1970
FIGURE 2.

1980

1990

2000 2010
Year

2020

2030

2040

Schedul e of Last Oi scharge

Dates to

Reactor Spent Fuel Pool s

OCR

0038

P A- 165056

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 15 of 23

SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT

THE REFERENCE ACCEPTANCE SCENARIO
The repository-only case used most broadly as a reference point for cal-

culation of MRS benefits 1n the MRS Systems Study (DOE 1989a) is a scenario
in which the repository is developed and deployed on the schedule shown in

the Draft 1988 Mission Plan Amendment (DOE 1988c), but without the MRS

facility described in that document. This case assumes initial acceptance in
the year 2003 at a rate of 400 MTU, ramping up to a design rate of 3000MTU

by the year 2008. The

reference allocation of this acceptance capacity among

reactors is based on the OFF rule as specified in the " Standard
1988b). A1

Contract for
capacity to

Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High- Level Radioactive Waste " (DOE

though thi s ru1 e does allocate

substanti

a 1 acceptance

shutdown reactors, it does not maximize the ability of the federal system to
assure timely decommissioning, since reactors relatively early in their ser-

vice lives (e.g., 10 years after initial criticality) will have fuel as old
as shutdown reactors whose pools are being drawn down in preparation for.

decommi ss ioni ng,

BASIC CONS IOERATIONS IN FORMULATING A SHUTDOWN PRIORITY

ACCEPTANCE SCENARIO

Eva1uation of the proposal to dedicate federal waste management system

acceptance to shutdown reactors requi res the

formu1 at ion of specific cases or

scenario! for quantitative analysis, and calculation of the at-reactor stor-

age and t ransportat i on consequences of these scenari
cons i derat

os. Because of some

ions uni que to shutdown priori ty

scenarios, these consequences are

sensitive to the details of acceptance scenario definition, and a very lit-

eral interpretation of the EDF proposal is much less desirable than one in

which relatively minor adjustments are made for these considerations.

This

section introduces two considerations of this type-- the aggregate quantity
of spent fuel e1 igib1e for shipment from shutdown reactors and the possible

limitation of system acceptance by at-reactor cask loading rate constraints.

OCR

0039

PA- 165057

- -

---

,..

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 16 of 23

In each case, the consequences of these considerations under a

iteral inter-

pretation of the EOF proposal are developed, and adjustments are made which
circumvent undesirable features of these scenarios.

SDent Fuel Availability
The data on projected last discharge dates illustrated in Figure 2. 1 can
be combined with spent- fuel discharge data to show the quantity of spent fuel

available from shutdown reactors as a function of time.

Figure 3. 1

shows the

result of this calculation, over which is superimposed the planned cumulative

spent fuel acceptance schedule from the Draft Mission Plan Amendment

(reposfu11-o

itory-only system), wh1chca11s for initiation of acceptance in 2003 and

rate acceptance of 3000 MTU per year by 2008. As shown by the figure,
restricting acceptance of spent fuel to only shutdown reactors would not pro-

vide a supply of spent fuel adequate to operate the planned federal system at

full rate. A cumulative shortfall of almost 20, 000 MTU would occur by 2012,

....-.-. Total

Inventory

Invenlory at Shutdown Pools

Inventory ~ Yrs Old at Shutdown Pools

'I 70

- Planned Acceptance

~ 40
Q; 30
iI':

::I

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

Year
FIGURE 3.
Spent Fuel Inventory Accumulation and Planned Acceptance

OCR

0040

PA- 165058

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 17 of 23

after which the system could operate at design rate. In practice, such a
situation would be an inefficient use of plant and operating staff. Should it
be desi rable to restrict acceptance to shutdown sites, spent fuel avail

abil ity

could be insured by either 1) refonmulation of the aggregate acceptance sche-

dule for either later initiation of acceptance or 2) a different aggregate

acceptance rate. The spent fuel availability problem could also be solved by
reallocation of the acceptance capacity remaining after acceptance of availab 1 e rue

1 from shutdown

reactors,

Of these possibilities, two were analyzed in this study: 1) the delay
(until 2013) of initial acceptance, and 2) the allocation of unused system

acceptance capacity to other reactors. The later first-repository start date
was used as a sensitivity case in the MRS Systems Study (DOE 1989a) and has

been suggested (DOE 1989b) as a reasonable initial date for spent fuel acceptance in a scenario devoted to shutdown reactors (state of Nevada s coments
on DOE' s Dry Cask Storage Study). Three reasons argued against analysis

(during the current study) of a ~ase in which system acceptance rate was

altered. First, a

complete evaluation of this case requires extensive con-

sideration of alternative facility designs, at least at a preconceptual

design level. Second, this sort of evaluation is now planned for inclusion in
a comprehensive study of system processing rate, to be conducted in

fiscal.

year 1990. Lastly, although

the cumulative spent fuel available from shutdown

reactors is less than system acceptance capacity for intenmediate years, the

cumulative availability is almost exactly equal to the
capacity at the planned end of the emplacement period.

planned 70, 000 MTU

At- Reactor

Cask LoadinQ Rate Constraints

The allocation of acceptance to only shutdown reactors tends to concentrate any 9i

yen year

OFF case where

s acceptance in a few reactors rel at ive to the reference smaller Quantities are loaded at many sites. The extent

this concentration will vary with the details of the sh~tdown priority rule considered, but in some cases could exceed preliminary estimates of loading

rate capabilities of some sites. This problem can be circumvented by reallocation of acceptance among other shutdown pools or to pools serving operating

reactors.

OCR

0041

PA- 165059

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 18 of 23

ava i labi lity for loading of transport casks at an operating reactor is a single IO- hour shift per d~y, 365 d~s per year. While this may be a conservative assumption for

The current reference assumpt

i on on spent fuel pool

a pool serving only shutdown reactors, re-eva1 uation of thi s assumption requires a detailed analysis of decommissioning sequence operations.

The

approach taken in the current study was to: 1) demonstrate the extent of this loading rate constraint on system throughput for a shutdown priority
scheme, and 2) show that even the loading rate limits imposed by the single

)O~hour shift assumption can provide for planned system acceptance rates if
acceptance is suitably reallocated among sites.

OTHER ASSUMPTIONS
Other general assumpt ions, adopted from MRS Systems Study Tasks G and F~'

are di scussed in the fo 11 owi ng sections.
ReDosi tory CaDac i tv and Second- ReDositorv Timina

Although the timing of the ~econd repository, and particularly the continuity of acceptance between the first and second repositories, can affect

the time required for spent fuel removal after shutdown, no explicit second-

repository assumptions were made for thi s

study. It was

assumed that all of

the 86, 760 HTU of spent fuel projected to be ge~erated under the 1988 EIA no-

new-orders increasing burnup case could be accepted at a continuous rate of

3000 HTU per year once the first repository was fully operational.

(This

could be accomplished with any set of first- and second-repository capacities
totaling 86, 760 HTU, provided first- and second-repository acceptance were

properly coordinated.

The first-repository operation was assumed to ramp up

to full rate in the pattern 400 MTU/yrt (3 years), 900 MTU/yr,
Pool Caoacitv and Soent Fuel Inventory

1800MTU/yr.

Pool capacity data were taken from the Energy Information Administra-

tions

s RW 859 survey (DOE 1988d). Appendix A summarizes the cumulative

projected pool and dry storage inventories in order of reactor shutdown.

OCR

0042

P A- 165060

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 19 of 23

Minimum Spent Fuel Aae Since Discharae

As noted in Section 2. 0,

spent fuel younger than 5 years is classified as

non-standard. Thus, S years is typically assumed as a minimum age of spent
fuel acceptance in simulations of the federal waste management system.

signi ficant portion of

the current designs for waste management system compo-

nents is based on spent fuel of 10 years age since discharge (DOE

1986a,

1986b). In practice, this difference

between minimum contractually acceptable

age and design basis spent fuel age has not been regarded as problematic,

since under an OFF allocation and spent fuel selection scheme, the

actual

average age of spent fuel at time of recei pt
greater quantity of " young "

is about 20 years.

Under an acceptance scenari 0 devoted to shutdown reactors, however, a

spent fuel is e1 igib1e for shipment than under

OFF, even with similar selection rules, and it is possible for the average age

of spent fuel accepted to be closer to the minimum acceptable age. For this
reason, a case was formulated with a minimum spent fuel age of 10 years rather

than 5 years.
All ocat i on of AcceDtance Amona Shutdown Reactors
Two methods of allocating acceptance among shutdown reactors were ana~

lyzed. The first, which is a standard assumption in the system simulation
model WASTES-II (Ouderkirk 1988) used for the study, is priority based on

order of pool shutdown. This is the " longest

Shutdown First, " or LSF rule.

second method analyzed was allocation of capacity to those ,shutdown sites with

the smallest spent fuel inventory remaining (the " Smallest

Inventory First,

or SIF rule). This rule was an attempt to minimize the system aggregate cost
of pool operations after last discharge. Since these costs are independent of
the quantity of spent fuel onsite (Wood et al. 1989), such a rule will tend to
allocate 1 imited capacity to those sites where it will have the greatest

impact in terms of reduced operational costs.

Allocation of Residual Acceptance Caoacitv
In those cases where the assumed 1 imits on cask loading constrain the

quantity of annual acceptance, residual acceptance capacity would either go

unused or be allocated to other pools. The standard assumption used here is

OCR

0043

PA- 165061

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 20 of 23

that acceptance capacity that would normally have been allocated to a given

pool but is above the logistically feasible allocation would be reallocated

. to the next sites in the
the SIF rule) ~

shutdown reactor queue (e.g.. either the pool with

the next shutdown date under the lSF rule or the next smallest inventory under

If decommissioning pools are not available. the acceptance

capacity is allocated to operating reactors under various alternative priority

schemes. (One
approach. )

case is analyzed under the assumption that this system accep-

tance capacity 1s unused in order to illustrate the problem with this

ShiDment Dedication and Size The cases in which the repository is dedicated to shutdown reactors

assume that when a pool is

serviced. all the el igible

spent fuel (up to sys-

tem capacity) in its inventory 1s transported to the repository in 1

year.

This does not imply that this fuel is shipped in a single shipment. If the

reactor is ra i 1- served. it

is assumed that the spent fuel is loaded onto a

series of dedicated trains each having three casks per train. Thi s assumption
of dedicated trains is the reference assumption for all spent fuel transportation scenarios (Brentlinger et al. 1989). The three-casks- per- train assump-

tion is based on the fact that in an oldest- fuel- first pickup scenario the

average amount of spent fuel transported from reactors per year is about three

cask loads.
Three casks per train may not be the optimum shipment size from a trans-

portation economics point of view. Because of the dedicated train charge per
shipment (a three-cask train is considered one

shipment). per-shipment costs

fall as the shipment size increases. Although larger shipment sizes are
11b.l1 in a shutdown priority scenario than under OFF. it is not clear that

the impl lcations of 1 arger

shipment sizes on the overall waste management sys-

tem or on cask fleet requirements are desirable. Shipment sizes large enough
to deplete a reactor' s inventory of spent fuel in one very large shipment per

year would tend to require larger amounts of lag storage at the repository

than would smaller. more frequent shipments. Such

large shipments could tax

the repository s cask unloading capacity, forcing large numbers of casks to

sit idle while waiting to be unloaded. Since the logistics questions related

OCR

0044

PA- 165062

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 21 of 23

to shipment size are beyond the scope of the present effort, the three-

casks- per-shipment

assumption was used.

Other Transportation Assumotions

The following assumptions for the physical characteristics, logistics
data, and cost data were taken from MRS System Study Task F assumptions:
Cask Physical Characteristics
- Casks are designed for IO- year-old spent fuel having burn 35K MWd/MTU - Rail cask capacity (assemblies): 21 (PWR)/48(BWR) 3(PWR)/7(BWR) - Truck cask capacities (assembl - Rail cask weight(lb): 200, 000(10aded)/168, 000(unloaded) - Truck cask we;ght(lb): 56, 000(loaded)/5I, 500(unloaded)

up of

ies):

Log; st ics

Data

- Rail cask life (yr):

- Truck cask 1 i

- Truck cask availability (days/yr): 310 - Rail cask turnaround time (days): 2 . 5(PWR)/3. 5(BWR) - Truck cask turnaround time (days): 2. 0(PWR)/2. 0(BWR)
Cost Data

- Rail cask availability (days/yr): 280

fe (yr):

- Cask purchase price ($ million): 2.

- Annual maintenance cost ($ mill ion):

0(rail)/0. 8(truck)

. 125(rail )/. O75(truck)
the shutdown

It is further assumed that shutdown reactors can support a continual

cask loading activity throughout the year. That is, because ,

reactors are no longer generating electricity, they can allow their pools to

be used exclusively for loading spent fuel into transportation casks; cask

loading i s assumed
operat ing reactor.

to take place at these reactors 365 days per year on a one

10 hour shift per day basis. This is the current reference assumption for an

The above assumptions establ ish, for the purposes of this study, an upper
1 imit on the annual spent fuel quantity loaded into transportati~n casks at

each pool. For example, it takes 2. 5 days to load a PWR rail cask with 21

assemblies. Thus,

with continual loading, 146 PWR casks (3066 assemblies) can

be loaded over 1 year s time. Table 3. 1 summari zes the upper 1 imi ts
truck, PWR, and BWR casks.

for rail,

OCR

0045

PA- 165063

~:
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 783-5 Filed 04/07/2004 Page 22 of 23

TABLE 3.

Derivation of Estimated Maximum Feasible Cask loading Rates
PWR- Truck
BWR- Truck

Cask Loading Constraints

PWR- Rail

BWR- Rail

Turnaround Time (days)
~asks Loaded/year SF assemblies/cask
SF assembl ies loaded/yr

182

182

146

104

546
251

1214

MTU loaded per year

229

3066 1410

4992 899

Cask loading rates are based upon one 10more shifts per day are assumed, the maximum feasible loading rate would

hr shift/day. If

increase.

At the site of a shutdown reactor, it may be possible and desirable to
exceed the cask loading rates assumed in Table 3.

1. Since definitive data on

the extent to which this would occur is not available, the approach taken in
this study is to use the estimates 1n Table 3. 1, even if lower than might

actually be achieved, and show that any resulting constraints on system
throughput can be mitigated by reallocation among reactors.

SUMMARY OF CASES ANAL VZED

Table 3. 2

sununarizes the nine cases formulated for analysis in this

study in terms of the assumptions discussed above. Cases

2 through 7 do~ument

the development of a shutdown priority scenario that is feasible and has rela-

tively low costs to utilities, beginning with a very literal construction of
the EDF suggestion in Case 2 and making refinements in the allocation rules.

Cases 8 and 9 are sensitivity analyses for the form of allocation among shut-

down reactors and the minimum acceptable fuel age.

Results are discussed in

Section 4.
In each of these cases, the repository s receipt requirements are satis-

fied by applying the allocation and priority rules to the set of reactors to

determine a reactor pickup schedule (sequence in which the reactors are serv-

iced and the amount of spent fuel picked up at each). For example, in Case 8
the order in which the reactors are serviced and the amount of spent fuel

transported are based upon several criteria. First, those reactors that

OCR

0046

P A- 165064

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 783-5

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 23 of 23

TABL

Description of Cases Analyzed

Repository
Case mber

Start
2003
2003 2013 2003
2013

Shutdown

llocatio
OFF
DEeOM
DECOM

Shipping
Rule

Minimum
Coo11ng Time

Pool Priority

(ye rs)

N/A
LSF( a)

lSF
LSF
LSF LSF

DECOM/FCR/OFF
DECOM(RJ (b)

2003
2003

DECOM (RJ/FCR/OFF

FCR/DECOM(RJ/OFF FCR/DECOM(RJ/OFF FCR/DECOM(RJ/OFF

LSF

2003
. 2003

SIdc)
lSF

(a) longest Shutdown First (lSF) - pools at shutdown reactors that have
(b)

(c)

been waiting the longest to be emptied have highest shipping . priority. DECOM(RJ indicates a case in which acceptance rights are based on shutdown status but have been rea 11 ocated among shutdown sites so . that estimated cask 1 oadi ng rates are not exceeded in any year. Smallest Inventory First (SIF) - pools at shutdown reactors that have the smallest inventory of spent fuel have highest shipping

pri or1 ty .
cannot satisfy the full core reserve (FCR) margin within their pools are
granted first shipping rights, reactors that are shut down are granted

shipping rights for any remaining system capacity and, if there is any system
capacity still available, additional shippings rights are granted to reactors

on an OFF basis. Second, for any given year, the shutdown reactors are
ranked according to the size of their spent fuel inventory, smallest inven-

tory first. Third, starting at the top of the ranking, spent fuel that is at
least 5 years old is loaded into casks and shipped to the repository until

the reactor s inventory of eligible fuel is exhausted or until the repository

receipt rate is satisfied, whichever comes

first. Reactor pickup schedules

for the other cases are determi ned in analogous ways, except that the all

cation and priority rules differ.

OCR

0047

P A- 165065