Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 1 of 26
ANAL YSJ S OF EFFECTS
FIGURES OF MERIT ASSOCIATED WITH AT- REACTOR STORAGE
The two principal effects of federal acceptance capacity and allocati~n policy on commercial power reactors are 1) their impacts on the quantity of additionalW at-reactor storage required to be deployed and 2) the length of
time that a reactor must await spent fuel removal (and hence
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 sig-
nificant 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
on
Oldest- fuel- First,
(i . e~,
gives intermediate results for both of these effects
neither capacity ne eds nor time between last discharge and
fuel
removal is minimized or maximized).
Additional StoraaeCaoacitv
The class of acceptance allocations analyzed here represent a limiting
case in this spectrum of allocation schemes. By
devoting capacity to shut-
down reactors, these schemes tend to preclude acceptance at operating reactors which could benefit from acceptance to limit the need for additional
storage. Thus,
additional at-reactor storage requirements and costs ~end to
assumptions and methods from MRS Systems
be higher for these cases. (Using
Study (Task G), projected additional storage requirements are on the order of
29, 000 MTU for Case 2, compared with about 10 600 MTU for the reference OFF
scenario (Case 1).
This increment of storage capacity would cost roughly
SJ.4 billion using the " lower bound )" cost estimates from Task G.
Duration and Cost of Pool Ooerations After last Oischarge
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
dischargl? Since
the operations costs are
OCR
0048
P A- 165066
..,
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 2 of 26
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
the last reactor at each pOD
last reactor to shut down, pool- years after last discharge were measured
based on the 1 ast di scharge from
TABLE 4.
1- shari ng site.
Reactors Sharing Pools
Sh~rina TvDe (a)
Reactors Sharina Pools
Bra i dwood 1
Browns Ferry 1&2
Byron 1&2
Calvert Cliffs 1&2
Comanche Peak 1
Cook 1
Hatch 1&2
laSalle City 1&2
Limerick 1&2
North Anna 1&2
Oconee 1&2
Po 1 nt
Beach 1
Prairie Island 1&2
Quad Cities 1&2
San Onofre I. 2, & 3
Sequoyah 1&2
Surry 1
Susquehanna 1&2
Turkey Point 3&4 Vogtle 1&2
Zion 1&2
(a) A K Common pool shared between 2 pools.
B . Pools connected by a transfer canal.
E . Pools requ1
ri ng cask transfer.
OCR
0049
P A- 165067
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 3 of 26
The cost of a year of spent fuel pool operation was estimated in Task G
at about S2. 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 t i on of an acceptance rights all ocat ion pol icy.
2. 1
formula-
The Reference Case
Case 1 is the reference OFF case from the MRS systems studies.
This
case results in significant costs to uti1 ities for spent fuel management at reactor sites in terms of both storage capacity above currently estimated
maximum pool capacities ($. 82
discharge
bill ion) and pool operations
cost after last
($2. 01 billion).
Case 2 - A literal Construction of fOr
Case 2 ,
was formulated as
the starting point in analysis of shutdown
priority scenarios. It assumes that the restriction on acceptance of spent
fuel from only shutdown pools is strictly observed. As a result, there is insufficient fuel to fully utilize system acceptance capacity for several
years (see Column 2 in Table 4. 3)
in this case, resulting in a total of
8850
MTU of acceptance capacity being unused.
In addition, the allocation of acceptance priorities on a strict
longest- Shutdown- FirsP basis in many annual cask loading constrai nts (Table
tion in excess of shipping capacity ft
cases implies that the individual pool
3. 1) would be exceeded. This " allocaproblem occurs in almost all years of
repository operation, as shown in Column 3 in Table 4. 3, and involves
significant fraction of the spent fuel--over 20, 000 MTU. Thus, this
scenario
is an infeasible one from a logistics perspective if these estimates are
OCR
0050
PA- 165068
(j)(') );:.
--
::u
TABLE
ShutdoNn
Pool Maintenance Cost and Logistics Impacts of Alternative Acceptance Scenarios
Case
St8r't
Pool
Cool Ing
Shutdown
Cululltlw
Aver.
Shutdown Tf- per
Pool (YrS)
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Olte
Al locatfon Rute
ShISIPI"8
Priority
Rule
MinfTITI..
eperetlcrw Cost (18) ,
Atloc:etlon (limn
20, 100 25, 600 11, 7110 12.
Infeetlble
thaid
System
C8pec1 ty CMTU)
At-Reector Totll
StOl'lllllt Costs ($I)
Ad1ftfcrwt
-cmL
(DOOl. wII'S)
Colt
OfF
DECOI'!
2003 2003
nilCe)
lSF
110 550
.tal..
O.ft
S50
.. c:)
220 570
~:?J)
Ce) Ce)
l.Pc
cc)
Ce)
u e)
2013
DEIXIC
ZOO3
OEC'OM/FCR/OFF
lSF lSF
11. 12.
OECOfII(It) (d)
(c) (e)
U'I
DECCM(R)/FCRIOFF FC1IJOECQII(R)IOFF
FCRlDECICM(R)IOFF FCR/OECCM(It)IOFF
2013 2003 2003
LSF LSF LSF
180 555 614
Document 780-5
2003 2003
SIF (b) lSF
672
025
10.
(e) Longest Shutdcwn First ClSF) . pools . It shutcb.TI reactors that 11M been IItftfrv tile lcrvest
Cb) SllBllest Il'MfttoryFfl'St
Filed 04/06/2004
Cd) DECOI'!(R)
(SIF) . pools at lhutdcwn ractors thet (e) Costs not reported -Inee this scenario fa infeasible IS configured.
to be 8II'tlcf hM picrfty. hIM tile SIIII\lest: IrMntory of fIP!r'It fu!t hM hlstlelt shlA'iro p1crlty. hlr#Jest shlR'iro
aUocatlon
reeltocetion of a strict shUtdown pool priority Illocltlon to other shutdown poots If a shutdown pool with rights Is ine8plble of shfSIPing cut its entire allocation.
Page 4 of 26
...I.
CJ'1
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 5 of 26
IABlE-id.
Year
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047
Pickup Schedules and Quantities of Spent Nuclear Fuel Infeasible for Pickup in Case 2
Scheduled Pickup
(MTU)
Infeasible Allocation
(MT
400 400 180
471
246 382 503 782 516 549 1 , 081 754 476 027 502
1 , 298
913 311 381 979 000 000 . 3, 000
000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 3, 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 544
205 400 139 354 595 390 567 498 1 , 228 212 502 267 279 596 175
237
323
Total
86, 758
20, 096
OCR
0052
PA- 165070
...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 6 of 26
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. 1
accurate. This is a consequence
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 formu1 ated to show how these problems could be circumvented and are discus~ed
below.
Delayed AcceDtance
One obvious solution to the problem of unused system acceptance capacity
in Case 2 is delayed f;rst-repositoryoperation. 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'
fully util-
ize system capacity. Ip 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
200
i" 150
u..
100
10 12 14 16 18
Caskloadings per Year
FIGURE ~.
22 24 26 28
Distribution of Annual Rail Cask10adings for Case 1
h""'Umn_--'... _uu .
-'_u
OCR
0053
PA- 165071
, '
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 7 of 26
lot 15
100
145
Caskloadings per Year
FIGURE 4.
Distribution of Annual Truck Cask1oadings for Case 1
);" 12
100
Caskloadings per Year
FIGURE 4.
150
188
Distribution of Annual Rail Cask1oadings for Case 2
OCR
0054
PA- 165072
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 8 of 26
ftI
f)S
tit 4
..t 2
500 Caskloadings per Year
FIGURE 4.
1000
1346
Distribution of Annual Truck Cask1oadings 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
costs of $2.
tional
this cost is not shown for Case 3, a slightly refined
late acceptance scenario in Case 5 results in additional at-reactor st~rage
2 bill ion - almost
three times the reference OFF cost for addi-
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 util ization 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 capacity) are granted secondary priority, and any remaining system acceptance
OCR
0055
PA- 165073
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 9 of 26
capacity is allocated according to the OFF principle. This case eliminates
- the unused
the repository.
the' system.
loadina Rate Constraints
system capacity observed in Case 2 even with a 2003 start date for
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, life of
For this reason, at-reactor costs were not calculated
for this case.
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
4is eliminated.
Table 3.
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'
values in any case, no reallocation of these portions of the priority scheme'
is required.
Imposing the loading rate constraint on Case 3 results
inCase 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
Tab 1 e 3.
1. Even though th i s case ci
rcumvents these bas i c problems,
the'
results in at-reactor costs substantially higher (at $4. 23 billion) than
reference OFf case.
Case 6 is the result of imposing the loading rate constraints (and
reallocation of acceptance) to Case 4. This case is both feasible and arguab 1 y
preferable to the reference case from a uti
ity cost perspecti
ve. 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 6.
OCR
0056
PA- 165074
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 10 of 26
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 $0. 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 uti1
ities of any analyzed, and results in a significant utility cost savings in comparison with the
reference case.
Sensitivity Cases
The lSF rule utl1 fzed
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 Firstft 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 $100 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,
that the minimum acceptable fuel age is 10 rather than 5 years.
in a sl ight increase
but This results
in storage capacity costs but a more sizable increase in
cost of operations after last discharge, for a combined cost impact of $0.
billion, as some reactors are precluded from needed acceptance by vi
the fuel age constraint.
rtue of
OTHER TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Transportation Cost and Cask Caoacity
The transportation cost model (TRICAH) now in use by the Office of Transportation and System Planning (OTSP) is sensitive to changes in the
distribution of spent fuel among different origins and to several unit cost
factors. Since all of the cases in this study have, over the life cycle of
the system, the same quantities of fuel from each origin, transportation
costs estimated by this method are invariant. The estimate shown in Table 4. 4 would apply to all cases. This estimate, however, makes some
OCR
0057
PA- 165075
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 11 of 26
TABLE 4.
Cost ComDonent
Capita 1
Transportat i on
Costs ($ mill ions)
Bill
306
392
Truck
394 199
Illil
-.-n
1069
Hauling
Securi ty
, Ma i ntenance
700 213
Total
..M
677
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,
everyPWR
rail
cask is assumed to have a capacity of 21 assemblies and every BWR rail cask
is assumed to have a capacity of 48 ass~mb1ies. EveryPWR
truck
cask is
assumed to have a capacity of 3 assembl ies ~nd every BWR truck cask is
assu~d to have
with the .
a capacity of 7 as semb1 ies. These capacities areconsi stent
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 ~id not
include consideration of alternative selection rules, but some indication of
the effect of various allocation rules on fuel characteristics may be
obtained by comparing characteristics for Off selection under alternative
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-
icant1y more young fuel is received under shutdown priorities and OFF selec-
t i on than under OfF all ocat i on and se ect i on.
Fully accounting for the implications 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 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 12 of 26
Decom. 5 Year Minimum
f-
OFF
i 6 ~ 5
I\
I'
..1
~ 4
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 con~
sidering 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 1 itt1e 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
and 4. 6 illustrate the age and burnup distributions for
Modal Mix Variations
The alterations of spent fuel receipt sequence among the cases in this
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
P A- 165077
(") )::'-\':
--!
::0
BLE
Age and Burnup Distributions for Case 1 (number of assemblies)
Itlllgl! (1'IId/MTU)
Coot fng
T I....
mml
m&!L
450005000055000 5500060000-
It..
500010000
100001 5000-
20000-
2500030000-
3500040000 40000-
mmL
106 113
rote.
- 5
5 -10
5ea
1518 1676
1985
324
1eo
S36S 11342 29346
10 15 20 25
-15 -20 -25 -30
350 176 729
523 1729 3118 635 1858
497
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
30 -35 35 -40 . 40 -45
1301 100 121
1018
1987 3063 3221 16244
U'055,
1303
525 2212 12360 20296 1539
5341 12134 1931
746
335
1881 1353
11K81
3344 5640 1534
2836 762 5219 9071 532
364 3966 13476 28350 20120 6164
222 1366 2530 324
1985 21029 61054 98120 75741 35704 5318
45
-50
~50
21102
Tota.
TIOi7
110245
20 129
-!l
-!l 3607
--2 --2 --2 35331
72537
--2 70594
---2 42912
---2 20830
4447
-!l
411
.Jl
--.J 298958
ies)
TABLE 4.
Ium4:t It.. (IWIKTU)
500010000-
Age and Burnup Distributions for Case 2 (number of assembl
Coot ing
(.0)
Tflle
20000250001 0000
Document 780-5
Renge
b:t!!:!)
lliQ!L
m!!L
1500020000
3000035000!2!!!2...
40000-
45000-
50000SOlS
55000-
60000-
m!m..
751
-!2m1
694 420 4753 984 216
2698 907
3668 1535
741
1CK
145 158
3754 1513 470 230
1511
112
619
3021 3414 2924
114
5910 8935 10500 10832 10304 8832
11632 9940 9753 8876 9181 8878
702, 857 836
40390 35931 33874 34380
35 577
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
- 5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 -45 -50
622 427 891
360 372 2600
1435
65~
6403
1lK1
554
4368 1457
Filed 04/06/2004
.50
'685 218 176
330
122
1489 4076 6190 1374
2085 4473 7654 7513 5398 1988 214
3897 6534 6938 7524 6330 5473 4238 2000
2786 4380 4450 3601 2422 1761 972 438
207
35810 36781 32955 12186 1068
35331
Totel
14245
ffi2
-!l 3607
---2 11091
---2 20729
--2 --2 72537 10594
---2 429TZ
--..!l
20830
-!l 4447
.Jl
---A 298958
"'0
Page 13 of 26
.....10.
0')
0'1
::) ....
),
Document 780-5 Filed 04/06/2004 Page 14 of 26
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
could increase and cost could be greater than that shown in Table 4.
costs in Table 4. 4 assume that the annual modal ~ix 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
bas is than does the OFF case.
30
-Case1
25 t- Case 7
.J:J
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Year
fIGURE 4.
Comparison of Rail Cask Fleet Requirements
OCR
0061
PA- 165079
....
, \\' '
,, ,,
Filed 04/06/2004 Page 15 of 26
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Case 1
Case 7
CII
(1J
J:)
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Year
FIGURE 4.
Compari son of Truck Cask Fleet Requi rements
OCR
0062
P A- 165080
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 16 of 26
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
As noted in the Introduction, the time available to complete this report
mor-e detailed analysis would allow higher confidence in the maximum annual cask
loading capabilities and a quantitative analysis of the effects of changes in
pr~c1uded analysis of some aspects of the topic.
In particular. a
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
accomplished through a free-exchange process. With these qual ificati()ns
mind, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. A class of spent fuel acceptance scenarios devoted to shutdown
reactors has some advantages over the reference OFf scheme, in reducing the time between last discharge and completion of spent' fue 1 removal by a system-wi de aggregate of as much as 600 poo years and estimated operations cost by as much as $1. 0 bill ion compared wi th the reference OrF scheme.
1-
2. Such a priority scheme, interpreted strictly as
imited only to
shutdown reactors and subject to a minimum spent 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. Any allocation scheme devoted exclusively to shutdown reactors will
maximize additional at-reactor storage requirements, with costs of about SI. 4 billion greater than the reference OFF case.
4. The app
1 i cat ion of an acceptance all ocat i on scheme devoted to shutdown reactors through either a 10ngest-shutdown(LSF) or sma11est- inventory- first (SIF) rule distributes annual spent fuel acceptance among a few reactors, implying the need for cask loading rates exceeding preliminary estimates of reactor pool capabilities.
fi rst
5. A reformulation of these priority rules to recognize these logistical constraints is possible by slight modification of the priority scheme without significantly affecting the beneficial features of these schemes.
OCR
0063
P A- 165081
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 17 of 26
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 result in a combined at-reactor cost (for'both addi-
1 ional storage capacity and operations after 1 ast di scharge) about $1. 3 bill ion lower than the reference OFF case. This scheme can be
constraints. '
formulated in such a fashion to observe the cask loading rate
7. Any of the allocation schemes that devote capacity to shutdown
reactors will unavoidably result in lower spent fuel ages and greater heat and radiation output than the reference OFF case. This will result in some change in capacities, fleet requirements, and costs from those shown here. The extent of this ~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
cuk
as possible.
OCR , JKF
0064
P A- 165082
...
~.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 780-5 Filed 04/06/2004 Page 18 of 26
REfERENCES
Brentl inger, ' L. A., S.
1989.
Gupta, A. M. Plummer, L. A. Smith, and S. Tzemos.
Columbus, Ohio.
Gupta, S., et a1.
fiRS Systems ' StudY. Task F: TransDortation Impacts of a Monitored Retrievab1eStorage ' Facil itv BMI/OTSP-O7, Battelle Memorial Institute,
1988. " TRICAM: A Transportation Cost
and Risk Analysis
Model,
Proceedinas. Waste Management '
Tucson, Arizona.
Ouderkirk, S.
1988. WASTESWaste System TransDortation and Economic Simulation - Release 24. User s Guide . PNl- 5714- 1, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washi ngton.
J.
II:
Pacific Northwest Laboratory.
Washington.
1985. Functional Design Criteria for an Intearal Monitored Retrieval Storaae (MRS) faeil itv . PNL- 5673, Richland,
s. Department of Energy (DOE). 1986a. " Request for Proposals No. DE..RPO7861012625 for Development of from Reactor Casks. Washington, D. S. Department of Energy
Geoloaic DisDosal
Washington, D.
C.
System
(DOE). (DOE).
C.
1986b. Generic Requirements for a Mined DOE/RW- OO90, U. S. Department of Energy,
s. Department of Energy
Washington, D.
1988a.
Initial Version. Drv Cask Storaae
DOE/RW-OI96 , Office of Civil ian Radioactive Waste Management
S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1988b. " Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High- level Radioactive Waste. ft Code of Federal
Re9u1ations
s. Department of Energy (DOE). 1988c. Draft 1988 Mission Plan Amendment DOE/RW- 0187 , Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington,
S. Department of Energy (DOE). 19BBd. Spent Fuel StoraQe , Richland, Washington.
C.
Title 10, Part 961.
(DOE).
1989a.
~. DOE/RL- 88- 34
Reouiremertts
S. Department of Energy
MRS Svstem Studv Summary ReDort.
DOE/RW- O235 , Washington, D.
Study
s. Department of Energy (DOE). 1989b. Final Version Drv Cask StoraQe DOE/RW- O220, U. s. Department of Energy, Washington, D.
Wood, T. , W., S. M. Short, M. G. Woodruff, M. K. Altenhofen, and C. A. MacKay.
Systems Study 1989. MRS Task G Reoort: The Role and functions of Surface Storaoe of Radioactive Material in the federal Waste Manaoement Svstem PNl6876, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
OCR
0065
PA- 165083
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 19 of 26
APPENDIX A
CUMULATIVE PROJECTED POOL AND DRY STORAGE INVENTORIES
IN ORDER OF REACTOR SHUTDOWN
OCR
0066
P A- 165084
(j)=--.
,'
..
....
::0
TABlLA
Projected Inventory of Spent Fuel at Reactors at Time of Shutdown
Reactor
Pool
Dry
CUllutetive
CUlut at hoe
Dry
Total
Total
CNTU)
.....!LReeetOl"
Cl.llulative poot Reactor Shutdown Inventory lnY81tory
-Im!.... -2!tL.
om/)
CNTU)
Inventory Inventory
oml)
(fmI)
(NTU)
Irwentory Inwntory
1101 1005
1974
30.
30.
69~5
3503
B\IIt B\IIt B\IIt
IIfDIM PT ORESOEIf IUIIOLDT BAT LACROSSt WEST VALLEY-8&P
IMt
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
AIInt . RQ/E 1
28. 38. 26.
168.
30. 69. 28. 38. 26.
168.
123.
1301 6401 5601 1201 6601 5701
BIG ROCIC DR IS' B\IIt &Nt
B\IIt B\IIt
1984 1987 1998 2000 2002 2002
IIADOM 11m:
DRESDEIf
10015
IMt
1
orsmt CRIe
"IIIE RILE PT1
IMt
GUillA ROIIIfSOII
74.
116. 148.
4615.
129. 203. 319.
63. 564. 566.
30. 100. 129. 167. 193. 362. 425. 990. 1557. 2245.
579.
' 634.
2825 . 0
63.
244. 368.
531. 175.
3459. 3891.
4310 . 9
:t:o
MILLSTONE MONTICELLO DRESDEII
8\IR
2007 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010
2011 2011 2011 2011
Document 780-5
IHOIM I'T
442. I
57. 564. 443. 613. 463. 4e6. 368. 235. 387. 361. 610.
5127. 6189. 6854. 1453. 8321.
6fJ9.
90.
PALISADES POI"T BEACH 1&2 PILGIUM GUN) CITIES 1&2
319. 548. 414.
1241.
431. 479. 756.3 361. 700. 665. 599. e67.
1485.3 773.
B\IIt
m1.
631.
1649. 1381. 1137.
MAIllE
TA~
560. 515.
1039.
1903 3101 4401 705 3201 3301 1007 1102 1204 5401 601 1010 2801 6001 1012
YT TANnE
llCli
150&
1803 3401
8IJR
OCXIIEE TURICET PT
100. 129. 167. 193. 362. 419. 984. 1428. 2041. 2505. 2991. 3359. 3595. 3982. 4343. 4954. 5396. 5715. 6263. 6677. 7919. 8479. 8995.1 10034. I
1&2 1&2 3&4 FORT CALIICUf PEACHBOTTa1 2 SUltRY 1&2
691. 910. 260. 679.
1203.
mMUNEE
ARK IIUClEAR 1
P\IIt
B\IIt
BRUIISVICIC
10725. I 11635. 11896. 12575. 13778.
223. 280. 319. 195. 243. 213. 115. 610. 696. I 226. 137. 210.
0 8
397. 890.
Filed 04/06/2004
141~.
14591. 15000.
- 15383.
5203 5501 401 702
2&M
B\IR
175. 229.
1144. 1144. 1235. 1458. 1738. 2058. 2253. 2491. 2710. 2826. 343T. 4133. 4359. 4496. 4707. 4707. 4883. 5113.
1203.
5423 . 0
10416. 11190. 11821. 13411. 14858. 15995. 16392. 11283. 18486. 19027.
1971K.
15OS
OCONEE,
3 RIL! ISl 1
DUAIIE ARNOlD
COOPER STI8
1901 2401 3001
2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 lO13 lO14 2014 2014 2014 2014
310. 175.
16033. 16373.
2014 '
16805~1
17296.
17'975.
20423. 20981. 21638. 22109. 22765.
130. 224. 497. 226. 207.
2014 2014 2014 2014 ' 2014
500.9. '
365. 447. 409. 382. 649. 340. 431. 491. 679. 507.
1261.
23154 .
3302 3705 3901 4501 4803
PRAIRIE ISL 1&2 PEACIIIIOTTON 3 FlT2P~TRICIC RAIICt!O StCQ 1 8R(MI$ FERRT1&2
18483. 18984. 20246.
75~4
Page 20 of 26
....10.
323.
5598. I 5605. 5735. 5960. 6457. 6684. 6891. 6961. 7290.
540. 677. 719. 557. 656. 470. 656. 988. 905. 715. 576.3
1585.
24660. 25375. 25951. 27536.
(')
::u
TABlE
(contd)
tulul8tfw
Cullldative
Dry
Reactor
Reector Shutdown Il'MIItory
Pool
CUluletlve
Total Il'MIItory
Tot81
Pool I rwentory
lrM!ntory I rMntory
nwlhtOff
Dry
.....1LMIIIIe ..!mL
te8c:tor
(ml)
0fN)
(lml)
amI)
omJ)
3202
3!!01 39OZ TRo.rM
KILlSJm
181M PT
423. 655.
20669.
21:m.
t4CK.
587.6 .
232. 151.
CALYDT a.F 1&2
21912.
22569 . 2
22978. I
501 701 1601
IlUlSVICI(
IEAWR VALLET 1
Sf LUCIE SAlEM 8RCMIS FStRY3
4C1S.
11M
23364. 23643. 24181. 24811.
657.
6$5. 806. 581.
1801
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
4202 4805
FARLFl
747. 359. 289. 458. 213. 114.
7523. 7675. 7675. 8422. 8781.3 9011.1 9529.
'm2.
9917.
ICK.
- 1OO2t.4
768. 675. 736. 752.
camAL 1M 3
DAVlS'IESSE 1
DXIC
386. 278. 538. 629. 651.
25463. 1
104.
101 1701 5001 5801
1&2 1&2
402
Mr:: 1IUCI.!AIt 2
IlATCW
2OU 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2011 2011 2011 2018 2018
1073.
"2.
249. 49$.
2739'.. 28467. 29119. 29659.
342. 878.3
25761.0 26103. 26981.
284. 233.
~1.
90.
173. I
755. 582. 575.
1620.
662.
1568.
28192. 28999. 29587. I 30991. 31759. 32435. 33172. 33924. 34728. 35484. 36067. 36642. 38262. 38924.
41K93. I
FARlEY
2OZO
2001 102 4203 5201
SALaI
1&2
3CK58. "
aTII MM
IICG.IIRE
2020 2020
151K
41108
StClUO'tAII
31072.
317118.
10306. 10539. 11280. 11530. 12025. 12115. 12288. - 12851.
14l. I 112.
1362.
'
1&2
3051.
13755. 14058. I
14187. I -
813.
1340.
CRAil) GULF
Document 780-5
SUIIER
SAIl OIIOIRE
2&1
lASALLE cn 1&2 flCGUllI!
Sf LUCIE
2901 4601 4701 1008 1505 1802
5302
VASil IMUAItZ
CATAVIIA
32401. 32992. 33723. 34116. 34725. 35341.
104.
35808 . 7
563. 199. 704. 302. 129. 1121. 1542. 256.
2021 2021 2022 2022 2022 2023 2023 2023 2023 2024
416.
995. 720. 1852. 1935. 864. 721. I 884.
15308. 16850. 17107.2 17212. 17628. 17628. 17863.
115019.
871. I
VATERfCRD 3
DIABLO tAJlTOli 1
SUSCUEKMItA 1&2
CALLA"'"
PWR
1501 2701 3501 3601 5101 301
PALO VERDE !1IR I eo FERI.. 2 RYR lEND
1es74.7
808. 719. 1836.
93'.
937.
1186.
Filed 04/06/2004
8\IR
P\IR
41235. 2 41947. 41310. 44123. 45463. 46459. 41179. 49032. 50967. 51832. 52553. 53431. 54308. 55116. 55835. 57672. 58606. 59543.
601'30.
~F CREEK
DIABLO CAlrTOli 2
PALO VERDE
PERRY
BWR
651. 539. 799. 614. 635. 693. 591. 731. 393. 608. 616. 467. 871. 573. 563. 981. 571. 563. 433. 586. 620.
563. I ' 548.
234. 155.8 855. 362. 373. 752. 380. 226. 171. 376. 442.
O~O
45902~ 1
967. 847. 734. 924.
1156.
CATAVIIA
P\IR
61697. 62544. 63279. 64203. 65359.
InllSTCIIE
IICP( CREEK
1402 2101 2501 3502 302 901 1502 3203 4201
2024 2024 2024 2024 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2026
713. 917. 847. 738.
36679. 37253. 37816. 387W. 39369. 39933. 40366. 40953. 41574. 42137. 42685. 43398. 44316. 45163.
92. 374;6
19237. 19610. 20363. 20744. 20970. 21141. 21518. 21961. 21961. 22053.
917. 939.
6621T
224l1.
1112.
67217. 68330.
Page 21 of 26
:po
0')
"""'"
....
..,
....!!!!!-
'~.
:;0
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
TABL
(contd)
CIJ!iIlatfYl! Pool
Reactor
Pool
....JLCMM
CMT\I)
eec:t or
CMM
11693.
1213.
Rl!lIC:tor
SIIutdown
Inwntory Inventory
377.
22805. 22805.
' 23485.
CUftuletlw Clilulathoe Dry Total Total Inventory I nwntory Inventory Inventory
Dry
1m)
,m.l)
303 703
1003 1602 2301
PALO VEROE HARRIS ITROII 1&2 IEAVER VAllEY 2
925. 693.
1893.
3102
B'-'I
CUlTON IflIIE MILE P12
IRA (owm
1&2
1&2
SOUTII TEXAS 1
YOGT1.E
Document 780-5
502. 493. 682. 428.
1067. 1104.
23822. 24249. 24561. 26008. 26126. 26974.
839. 920.
SWTR TEXAS 2 LrflERlCK 1&2
VATTS 8AR
2027 2027 2027 2021 2027 2027 2028 2028 2029 2029 2031
rnJea.
28349.
28709. 4
1001 2101 2003 2202 3701 4810 5901 4901
$!AWICK COWfCIIE IlK 1
2031 2031
723. 595. 570.
1373.
1875. 1185. 1952. 1176. 1984.
2037
46450. 47143. 483$6. 48858. 49352. 50035. 50463. 51531. 52635. 53698. 54421. 55017. 55587. 56960.
679. 337. 426. 312. 1447. 118. 847. 114. 1260. 360. 466. 482.
29658.
29176. 29658.
955. 1036.8 1855.
86619.
69255. 69949. 71842. 72681.2 13601. 74596. 76472. 77651. 79610. 80786. 82770. 83726. 84763. 86618.
Totel
56960.
Filed 04/06/2004
(e)
110 dry Itorllgl!
Inventory II genl!rated for SUrl')' 1&2, ~8W' th. UtHIty reported In the 1987 R11-85? 10m ewn tflcugh this sltl!CVr'rently dQeJus, sIte dry Itorllgl!, that the total pool cepeeltyfor the Inchided ml! projected dry storllgl! IfMntory.
Page 22 of 26
:po
0')
CJl
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 23 of 26
PNl-7143 UC- 812
DISTRIBUTI
No. of
toDies
OFFSITE
DOE/Office of Scientific and
No. of Cop 1 es
2 , Sandi a Nat 1 ona 1
laborato~y
Division 6311
Technical Information
Albuquerque, NM 87105 ATTN: G. Hertel
A. Dennis
Office of Civil ian
Radioactive
Waste Management S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585 ATTN: J. Carlson
R. B1 aney
ATTN: N. Dayem
955 l' Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20024
P. Bolten J. DiNunno M. Conroy
E. R. Johnson & Associ ales, Inc. 10461 White Granite Dr.
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
A. W. M. H. C. T. C. N. T.
Brownstein Danker frei Hale Head Isaacs Kouts Moon Pollog
Sui te
Oakton, VA 22124 ATTN: B. Cole
E. Johnson N. Mcleod
204
G. Riling Stein
Eo . Svenson J. Williams'
Yucca Mountain Project Office
lawrence l ivermore National
Laboratory
O. Box 806
u. S. Department of Energy
ATTN: M. Cloninger
G. Rodri quez
Battell e, Paci fic
Livermore, CA 94550 ATTN: l. Ballou
M. Revell i
T. Cotton 4801 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 402
O. Box 98518 Las Vegas, NV 89183- 8518
laboratori es
Northwest
Washington, DC 20016
, P. O.
370 L' Enfant Promenade,
Suite 900 Washington, DC 20024- 2115 ATTN: G. Beeman C. MacKay
S. Short T. Wood (30)
Oak Ridge National laboratory Box X
AnN: D.
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Joy W. McClain
Battelle Columbus laboratories OTSP Department 505 King Ave.
Columbus. OH 43201 ATTN: D. Dippold
A. Plummer
Oistr.
OCR
0070
P A- 165088
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 24 of 26
No. of CaDi es
ONSJTE
No. of
CoDies
12
Pacific Northwest laboratory
R. Hei neman M. Krei ter
DOE Richland ODerations Office
C. Co l1antes
D. Jones
R. D. H. R.
McKee Payson Shay Smith
Publ ishing
Technical Report Files (5)
Coordination
Distr.
OCR
0071
P A- 165089
... ~
""'......, .., .. ".-~.., ~...-.- .., '.-
..
~,
Document 780-5 Filed 04/06/2004 Page 25 of 26
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Reproduced by NTIS
'D ..
~ei~
UCUG)
ca m....
II. W CI)' (J
.... ... G)
National Technical Information Service Springfield , VA 22161
This report was
from nearly
printed specifically fqr your ,order milliot! titles available in pur collection.
'18
0.- ","
;E E
,CD Q)
0CD~UI
Q) '
For economy and efficiency. NTIS does not maintain stoc~ of its vast collection of technical reports. Rather. most docurt)ents are printed for each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reprOduced from master archival copies and are the best pos~Jple reproductions '
avallable~ If order you you
.. 0
have any questions concerning this document or any
.... Q.'-'-
Department at (703) 605-6050.
About NTIS
have placed with NTIS. please call our 9ustomer Service
C.c== .... U=CDOC
, Q)
CD CD Q)
C...
" 0
NTIS collects scientific technical. engineering, Bndbusiness related information - then organizes. maintains . and disseminates that information in a variety of formats - from microfiche to online services. The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military publications; multimedialtraining products: computer software and electronic databases developed by federal agencies;. training tools; and technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide. Approximately 100. 000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
c.ns ~ ., c.cn omc 18:
ta.=.. 0'-
s: E r..
collection annually.
http://www. ntia. gov.
= .e
0 '0'In""
~e"
='0 fa ns P!e-c
For more information about NTIS products andservioes. call NTIS at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free NTIS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG. or visit the NTIS Web site
U)c Z 0.-.-
t-...
NTIS
Your Indispensable f8$ource for government-sponsored , Information-U. S. and worldwide
OCR
0072
PA- 165090
",
",
, .'...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 780-5
Filed 04/06/2004
Page 26 of 26
f1I,
u.s. DEMMENr OF COMMERCE
TecInIIotrt
AdmOsIIa'-,
SeMce
003)
NaIiIaaI t.dnc8
VA 2!161
IIIIIIIIIIIII~
*DE98004456'"
III liB
"'ax'"
PAYMENT: NONE
SHIPTO: 1*378563
BIN: 578066 04-09-88 M220 INVOICE:
OCR
0073
PA- 165091