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

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