~:
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 781-3 Filed 04/07/2004 Page 1 of 1
TABLE 3.
Derivation of Estimated Maximum Feasible Cask loading Rates
PWR- Truck
BWR- Truck
Cask loadin9 Constraints
PWR-Rail
BWR- Rail
Turnaround Time (days)
~asks loaded/year SF assemblies/cask
SF assemblies loaded/yr
182
182
146
104
546
251
1274
MTU laaded 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
i ncrease.
At the s1te 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 in 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 VIED
Table 3. 2
summarizes 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
Sect; on 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 ;n 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