Storage of high level nuclear waste. Michel’ paper

U.S. NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD (NWTRB): Bahr JM, Becker SM, Brantley SL, Croff AG, Foufoula-Georgiou E, Illangasekare T, Peddicord KL, Turinsky PJ, and Zoback ML, Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation: Technical Issues that Need to Be Addressed in Preparing for a Nationwide Effort to Transport spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board report to the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of Energy, Sep 2019. Link at: https://www.nwtrb.gov/our-work/press-releases/technical-issues-that-need-to-be-addressed-in-preparing-for-a-nationwide-effort-to-transport-spent-nuclear-fuel-and-high-level-radioactive-waste-is-subject-of-u.s.-nwtrb-report or via www.nwtrb.gov/our-work/reports. Also at: https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/reports/nwtrb_nuclearwastetransport_508.pdf?sfvrsn=6.

[This U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB, NWTR Board or Board) is an independent federal agency established by the 1987 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. This report to Congress and the Department of Energy (DOE) is an evaluation of the technical and integration issues DOE will need to address to ready spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) (in combination, waste or nuclear waste) for transportation to a nuclear waste repository or interim storage site. DOE is the agency responsible for transporting nuclear wastes under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA).

Excluded from consideration in this Board review are: (i) the exact destination for these wastes; (ii) potential transportation routes; and (iii) institutional or social issues, including nuclear waste policy, funding, and public outreach. (pp xxi & xxiii)

As of April 2019, SNF and HLW were stored at more than 80 locations in 35 states. Small-scale shipments of SNF have occurred for decades, most notably, periodic shipments of naval SNF by the US Navy. “However, transporting large quantities of SNF and HLW has not been done in this country and will require significant planning and coordination by DOE, the agency responsible for waste transportation under the NWPA.” (p xxii, emphasis added) All shipments must meet safety requirements promulgated by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). (p xxii)

The Board “observes that unresolved technical issues could significantly delay or impede the implementation of a national transportation program for radioactive waste.” (p xxii) “The large size, broad scope, and geographic distribution of the U.S. SNF and HLW pro-gram make resolving the technical and integration issues associated with a nationwide transportation effort a significant challenge. SNF and HLW inventories in the U.S. include a diverse collection of waste forms, waste storage containers, storage conditions, storage locations, waste transportation containers, and licensing requirements. Current waste storage sites also include several unique challenges, such as varying degrees of accessibility for large transport vehicles or railcars. Addressing the unresolved technical and integration issues associated with these program elements prior to initiating transportation will require a well-planned and well-integrated effort.” (p xxiii)

Before a national transportation effort begins, DOE must determine what scenario it will select:

Scenario 1: DOE will take only bare commercial SNF assemblies (assemblies not sealed inside SNF canisters) from nuclear utilities. Scenario 2: DOE will take assemblies pre-packaged in casks or canisters. (See p xxiii, Figure ES-3, graphic depicting example commercial SNF dual-purpose – storage and transportation – canister.) A third option is accepting both bare assemblies and SNF packaged in casks and canisters; in which case DOE will need to address technical issues that apply to both scenarios. (p xxiii)

DOE is not yet actively planning to begin nuclear waste transportation, but it is conducting several evaluation, research, and development activities to support a future nationwide transportation campaign. DOE national laboratories are developing a suite of computer-based system analysis tools to enable evaluation of different alternatives for implementing an integrated waste management system, including transportation. DOE also has sponsored detailed site evaluations, including reviews of the steps necessary to remove commercial SNF from 6 shutdown nuclear power plant sites. (p xxiv)

The Board identified 30 technical issues for DOE to address, with 23 related to SNF and 6 affecting only HLW. The list of 30 is set forth in Table ES-I “Board-Identified Technical Issues to Be Addressed in Preparing a Nationwide Effort to Transport SNF and HLW”. (pp xxv-xxvi) This list “represents a broad range of technical and integration issues” but “does not necessarily reflect a comprehensive list of the actions that must be completed before a nationwide transportation effort can begin.” (p xxvii) The technical and nontechnical issues “must be addressed in an integrated manner.” (p xxvii) Further, coordinating the resolution oftechnical issues in parallel “will require significant planning, integration, and interaction with other federal agencies, the nuclear industry, state and local agencies, and others.” (p xxviii, emphasis added)

Table 2-1 (Executive Summary at p xxv) and Table A-1 (Appendix A at p 36). “Board-Identified Technical Issues to Be Addressed in Preparing a Nationwide Effort to Transport SNF and HLW” {Identified 18 technical issues pertaining to commercial spent fuel are described below under headings that correspond to those in the report at pp 25 & 36, but all emphasis (bolding) is added.}

Technical Issues Affecting All SNF and HLW and All Scenarios

1. Identify and mitigate potential physical effects of transporting nuclear waste casks and canisters to ensure they will meet transportation and future storage requirements.

2. Identify requirements for “verifying the condition” of the waste “at the time of transport;” develop and implement inspections procedures and equipment and correct identified deficiencies.

3. Identify and implement waste handling and loading needs (e.g., facilities, equipment, procedures, training) at all nuclear waste storage sites.

4. “Identify less-than-adequate transportation infrastructure (e.g., roads, rail lines, barge docks) at all sites; make needed upgrades.

5. “Ensure the readiness of the technical aspects of emergency preparedness and response programs and organizations.”

6. “For waste forms and packaging not already approved for transportation: identify, develop, and validate computer models/programs (if not already done) to be used for structural, thermal, containment, shielding, and criticality evaluations in support of licensing for transportation; ensure the models/programs and input data meet the NRC requirements for quality assurance/quality control; and complete all necessary evaluations.”

7. “Complete the design, development, and implementation of integrated waste management system analysis and routing tools.”

Scenario 1 – Technical Issues Affecting Commercial SNF (if DOE accepts unpackaged, bare SNF assemblies)

8. “Complete the design, licensing, fabrication, and testing of new SNF packages and transportation equipment on a timescale that supports the transportation schedule.”

9. “Identify and implement programs for designing, procuring, installing, and operating repackaging facilities and equipment at all sites, as necessary.”

10. Identify and mitigate “potential adverse effects of repackaging operations on SNF assemblies to ensure the SNF will meet transportation requirements.”

Scenario 2 – Technical Issues Affecting Commercial SNF (if DOE accepts SNF assemblies already packaged in casks or canisters)

11. Identify and correct damage “or mitigate degradation mechanisms leading to damage, to casks or canisters during dry storage that may affect the ability of the casks or canisters to meet transportation requirements.”

12. Identify and remedy types of casks and canister not approved for transportation if “• The cask or canister structural design or neutron absorber structural design does not meet transportation requirements. • The cask or canister is not yet approved by the NRC (although similar casks or canisters are approved).”

13. Identify and correct individual casks and canisters “with contents or physical conditions that do not meet the requirements specified in the NRC-approved transportation Certificate of Compliance.”

14. “Identify inspection requirements, procedures, and equipment needed to verify the condition of all casks and canisters before transportation; perform inspections; and rectify identified problems, if needed.”

15. “Complete the design, licensing, fabrication, and testing of all needed transportation casks and associated components.”

Technical Issues Affecting Commercial SNF (regardless of SNF packaging)

16. Identify and mitigate “degradation mechanisms in commercial SNF occurring over extended periods of dry storage that may affect the ability of SNF to meet transportation requirements.”

17. “Determine what burnup credit can be taken for all SNF types other than pressurized water reactor SNF (for which burnup credit is allowed by the NRC in its Interim Staff Guidance-8, Rev. 3).”

18. “Complete the design, licensing, fabrication, and testing of a commercial SNF railcar (e.g., the DOE Atlas railcar).

Figure 2-1 “Sequence of events in Scenario 1: Technical Issues Affecting Commercial SNF (if DOE accepts unpackaged, bare SNF assemblies)” indicates a sequence of events which finds that among the first technical issues to be addressed are: • “Identify effects of high burnup, extended storage, and transportation loads on SNF” and • “Ensure emergency response programs are prepared for SNF transportation”. (p 29, emphasis added)

During its summer 2018 Board Meeting, the Board asked representatives of DOE, SNF cask vendors, and domestic and foreign nuclear utilities to estimate the length of time it could take to address the most difficult technical issues, based on their own experience or analysis. Development and licensing of a new SNF transportation cask, the Board estimates, will take at least 10 years. (p 28) Currently approved rail casks average approximately 23.3 ft in length and 10.8 ft in diameter (7.1 m by 3.3 m) and weigh, loaded, 125 metric tons (275,000 lb). (p xxviii, Figure ES-4. SNF rail transportation cask photo and description, emphasis added) Should DOE elect to construct a SNF repackaging facility, that effort could take much longer than a decade. (p xxviii)

BOARD OBSERVATIONS

DOE’s preliminary evaluations of removing commercial SNF from shutdown sites show “considerable planning and coordination will be required to refurbish or reestablish the capabilities to handle and load SNF containers, reconstitute needed site infrastructure (e.g., electrical power, radiological controls), and rebuild the roadways and/or rail lines necessary to support SNF transportation.”(p 31)

“The current effort by the DOE-NE {DOE Office of Nuclear Energy} to perform analyses and assess options for a nationwide transportation program does not appear to be well-integrated with activities of DOE-EM {DOE Office of Environmental Managment}. Furthermore, the current assessment of options for the transportation program does not include sufficient consideration of the SNF and HLW materials and packages that DOE-EM manages.” (p 31)

“Additional types of new casks and canisters may be required to transport some commercial SNF. Furthermore, past DOE analyses have noted the advantages of developing a waste management program based on standardized, multi-purpose cask and canisters designs.” (p 31) This is the process the Board estimates may take more than a decade.

“The development of a nationwide program for transporting SNF and HLW must include close coordination with local, state, and tribal emergency planning and response organizations. Due to the varying requirements among jurisdictions and the length of time needed for some jurisdictions to develop and implement the required technical aspects of emergency preparedness and response programs, significant advance planning by DOE will be needed.” (p 31, emphasis added) “DOE must comprehensively and effectively address issues such as public outreach and transportation route planning.” (p 31)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

“Technical Issues Should Be Addressed in an Integrated and Comprehensive Manner.” (p 32) “The complexity and scale of the nation’s SNF and HLW management program make resolving technical and integration issues a challenge. SNF and HLW inventories in the U.S. include a diverse collection of waste forms, waste storage containers, storage locations and conditions, waste transportation containers, and licensing requirements. Different waste storage sites also have varying degrees of accessibility for large transport vehicles or railcars. Addressing the unresolved technical and integration issues associated with these program elements prior to initiating waste transportation will require a well-planned and well-integrated effort, applied over an extended time.” (pp 32-33, emphasis added)

Excerpts from Findings

“Finding 1. The Board finds that many interrelated technical and integration issues must be addressed in preparing for a nationwide effort to transport SNF and HLW to their eventual destination. Te technical issues must be prioritized and their resolution properly sequenced to ensure that the overall program will be operationally feasible and unhindered by delays.” (p 33)

“Finding 2. The Board finds that DOE’s effort to evaluate the readiness to move commercial SNF from shutdown nuclear power plant sites has gathered important information that will be needed to support the removal of commercial SNF from these sites for transportation. However, not all shutdown sites have been fully evaluated.” (p 34)

“Finding 3. The Board finds that DOE will have to complete existing canister designs or develop new cask and canister designs for storing and transporting SNF and HLW. Te Board also finds that developing new cask or canister designs for SNF or HLW could take longer than a decade. Therefore, DOE will need to allow for considerable advance planning and early coordination with NRC during the development of new cask and canister designs.” (p 34)

The former Director of the Office of National Transportation for the Yucca Mountain Program, at the summer 2018 NWTRB Board Meeting, provided an informative list of technical issues of greatest concern to be resolved in preparation for a large spent nuclear fuel transportation effort. Among these: • “Transporting high burnup SNF” • “Managing the overall complexity of the transportation system” • “Resolving the lack of transportation integration with storage and disposal, especially between the private sector and the federal government; the proposed use of a Transport, Aging, and Disposal (TAD) canister was a flawed attempt to address this challenge – something new is needed (Lanthrum 2018)”. (p 21)]

A simple (and expected) example of a condition outside the limits of the CoC is a case in which the SNF in the cask or canister has not been cooled for the minimum time required by the CoC. In this case, the licensee will allow more time for the SNF to cool before attempting to transport the cask or canister holding the SNF. However, this approach will lead to delays in the removal of SNF from some nuclear power plant sites, as discussed below. (p 77)

An analysis of operator activity shows that, on average from 2004–2013, nuclear utilities discharged SNF with higher burnup (~45 GWd/MTU) than previously discharged. (p 77, citing Williams, J. 2013. “NWTRB Workshop—Inventory.” Presentation at the NWTRB Technical Workshop on the Impacts of Dry-Storage Canister Designs on Future Handling, Storage, Transportation and Geologic Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel in the United States. Washington, DC. November 18–19, 2013) The SNF is “thermally hotter and more radioactive.” (p 77) In addition, nuclear utilities are loading SNF into larger dry-storage casks and canisters to reduce their costs and improve their site operational efficiency. The largest of these canisters now holds as many as 37 PWR assemblies or 89 BWR assemblies. “As a result, these larger casks and canisters are hotter than earlier dry-storage casks and canisters; therefore, they will take longer to cool sufficiently to meet transportation requirements.” (p 77, emphasis added)

“DOE estimated that if SNF was repackaged from large casks and canisters into smaller standardized canisters (and using standard assumptions about the operating lifetime of the U.S. fleet of nuclear reactors), DOE could remove SNF from all nuclear power plant sites by approximately 2070. However, if no repackaging occurs, some of the largest SNF canisters storing the hottest SNF would not be cool enough to meet the transportation requirements until approximately 2100 (Williams 2013).” (p 77, emphasis added)]

Michel

Michel Lee, Esq.

Chairman

Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy (CIECP)

(914) 420-5624

Lee2CouncilEnergy@gmail.com

Senior Analyst

Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy (PHASE)

From: Manna Jo Greene
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2022 10:43 AM
To: Alfred Meyer <alfred.c.meyer@gmail.com>; Alice Slater <aslater@rcn.com>; ayumitemlock <ayumitemlock@gmail.com>; Barbara Warren <warrenba@msn.com>; Bob Alpern <bobalp140@aol.com>; Robert Alvarez <kitbob@erols.com>; donnagilmore@gmail.com; Eric Epstein <epstein@efmr.org>; Jan Boudart <janboudart1@gmail.com>; Janet Tauro <janettauro007@gmail.com>; Janet Tauro <jtauro@comcast.net>; jlbnj1@gmail.com; kalewalk@gmail.com; karendhadden@gmail.com; Kevin Kamps <kevin@beyondnuclear.org>; Leona Morgan <leona.morgan.nm@gmail.com>; Linda Lewison <ljlewison1@gmail.com>; Mannajo Greene <ea1@clearwater.org>; Mari Inoue, Esq. <hrn.nyc@gmail.com>; Marvin Resnikoff <radwaste@rwma.com>; Keegan, Michael K. <mkeeganj@comcast.net>; lee2councilenergy@gmail.com; michel <ciecplee@verizon.net>; Molly Johnson <mollypj@yahoo.com>; Nancy Vann <nancy_vann@hotmail.com>; Patricia Cardona <patriciacardona24@yahoo.com>; dressler_p@verizon.net; Paul Gunter <paul@beyondnuclear.org>; richard.paulk@gmail.com; Richard Webster <rwebster@riverkeeper.org>; Sally Gellert <sjguu@aol.com>; Stephen Kent <skent@kentcom.com>; smhangs5@att.net; decomm_wkg@lists.riseup.net; brennain@northwatch.org; mbbrangan@gmail.com; Kraft, Dave <neis@neis.org>; Bart Ziegler <bziegler@toxco.net>; Paul Blanch <paulmartinblanch@gmail.com>; Paul Blanch <pmblanch@comcast.net>; Diane D’Arrigo <dianed@nirs.org>; Linda Seeley <lindaseeley@gmail.com>; cathy Iwane <cathyiwane@yahoo.com>; r66nj@yahoo.com; petuuche@aol.com; ceceand2003@yahoo.com; Maggie Gundersen <fairewinds@gmail.com>; brennain@onlink.net; Schuyler Gould <skygvt@aol.com>; Steven Sondheim <StevenSondheim@yahoo.com>; Tim Judson <timj@nirs.org>
Subject: Re: DWG Focused topic 12/922 at 11:00 a.m.

NRC and DoE are pushing CIS and Transportation

Consent based of course

DWG Focused Topic Meeting

Friday, December 9⋅11:00am – 12:15pm

Every 2 weeks on Friday, until Dec 23, 2022

Take meeting notes

Start a new document to capture notes

52 guests

7 yes

4 no, 41 awaiting

content_copy

keyboard_arrow_down

notes

Description:Decommissioning Working Group Focused Topics Meeting
Friday,10/28/22 ⋅11;00 – 12:15 a.m. Eastern
Every 2 weeks on Friday, until Dec 23, 2022

Regular DWG meeting on 11/4/22

Description: Manna Jo Greene is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83968682593?pwd=ZDJHY1JSMm1wS05PWGNxUVJVOGpjUT09

Meeting ID: 839 6868 2593
Passcode: 123456
One tap mobile+16465588656,,83968682593#,,,,*123456# US (New York)

+13126266799,,83968682593#,,,,*123456# US (Chicago)
Dial by your location +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)Meeting ID: 839 6868 2593Passcode: 123456

Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kbjyfUSg4

2023 Congressional Briefing draft agenda
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sn8YAvi99RersnhEZNm2g5pdaWrsMJo12Wt1yqGSWIo/edit

NRC DoE pushing CIS

10 minutes before

event

Organizer: Mannajo Greene

Mannajo Greene

Going?

Yes

Maybe

On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 9:28 AM Manna Jo Greene <mannajo@clearwater.org> wrote:

DWG Focused Topic Meeting

Friday, November 11⋅11:00am – 12:15pm

Every 2 weeks on Friday, until Dec 23, 2022

Take meeting notes

Start a new document to capture notes

52 guests

7 yes

4 no, 2 maybe, 39 awaiting

content_copy

keyboard_arrow_down

notes

We need someone to facilitate. I have a cough that is triggered when I talk.

Many thanks,

Manna

Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
724 Wolcott Ave., Beacon, NY 12508
845-265-8080 x 7113 Fax: 845-831-2821
845-807-1270 (cell)
845-687-9253 (home office)
www.clearwater.org

><((((º> ><((((º> ><((((º> ><((((º>

—

Many thanks,

Manna

Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
724 Wolcott Ave., Beacon, NY 12508
845-265-8080 x 7113 Fax: 845-831-2821
845-807-1270 (cell)
845-687-9253 (home office)
www.clearwater.org