The Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste

A Systematic Basis for Planning and Management at the National, Regional, and Community Levels

Prepared By
Planning Information Corporation
Denver, Colorado
September, 1996

Appendix A:   Transportation Choice Scenarios DOE Assumptions

While DOE has not estimated annual shipments by route segment, several DOE studies consider transportation choices on a site-by-site basis: a 1996 "preliminary transportation strategy study for a potential Nevada repository",21 and a 1993 evaluation of the use of MPCs in DOE's high-level waste management system.22 This appendix reviews the transportation choice assumptions in the two DOE studies, comparing them with those in the scenarios developed for this report.

Transportation Strategy Study 2

This study,21 prepared as a basis for evaluating transportation options to a potential repository in Nevada, includes in Table F3 an estimate of the number of casks and MTU shipped from each commercial site and the four defense sites over the life of the program. The estimates are not annualized or keyed to proposed acceptance schedules or prioritization policies. Also, while the number of cask shipments is presented, the type of casks shipped is not.

To provide a basis for comparison, we have estimated the types of casks implied by Table F3 of DOE's Transportation Strategy Study 2 (see Table A-2): Data on the number of assemblies and MTU at each reactor was assembled (Ref #13, Table B6), aggregated for shipment sites, and used to calculate the average MTU per assembly at each site. The number of assemblies implied by the MTU in Table F3 was estimated by dividing MTU by the average MTU per assembly. The implied assemblies per cask was estimated by dividing assemblies by the number of casks identified in Table F3. The type of casks implied by Table F3 was identified by comparing estimated assemblies per cask with the capacity (in PWR or BWR assemblies) of small and large MPCs.

DOE's Transportation Strategy Study 2 implies that 11 sites which ship by truck in Nevada's MPC Base Case would instead ship by rail: Sites in columns 1 and 2 below would ship by small MPC, while those in column 3 would ship by large MPC.

Also, DOE's Transportation Strategy 2 implies that Three Mile Island would ship by large MPC, rather than by small MPC, as assumed in Nevada's MPC base case.

The transportation choices implied by DOE's study are, with the exception of a single site (Haddam Neck, assumed to ship by truck in the DOE study), identical to the "maximum rail scenario" discussed in Section 11 above, and could be implemented only through a set of incentives such as those discussed in the maximum rail scenario. Compared to Nevada's MPC base case, the transportation choices implied by DOE's study would significantly reduce highway impacts and total cask shipments, in the process increasing reliance on rail shipment. However, the necessary investments to improve cask loading capabilities and near-site infrastructure could be greater than those required under the MPC base case scenario of transportation choices, and substantially greater than under the current capabilities scenario.

Evaluation of Using MPCs

This study,22 prepared as part of DOE's MPC initiative, includes in Appendix D a set of shipment projections "based on the assumption that individual utilities will request the largest cask they can effectively handle" (page D-1). The study did not include shipments of HLW or spent fuel from defense sites. Nor did it explain the basis for its judgement that 83 storage locations could effectively handle a large MPC, while 19 could effectively handle a small MPC, and only 14 require canistered truck shipments. Perhaps it refers to locations that, with incentives, could be upgraded to effectively handle the cask types specified. The study did consider storage locations, reaching different judgements for storage locations at the same site (e.g., Millstone 1 versus Millstone 2 and 3, San Onofre 1 versus San Onofre 2 and 3, St. Lucie 1 versus St. Lucie 2).

The MPC evaluation assumes ten storage locations would ship by truck (or require special handling: heavy-haul, cask-to-cask transfer, barge) which the transportation strategy study assumes will be shipped by rail:

The transportation strategy study assumes that the locations in columns 1 and 2 above would ship by small MPC, while those in column 3 would ship by large MPC.

The 1993 MPC evaluation and the 1996 transportation strategy study reach differing rail cask conclusions at thirteen sites:

The transportation strategy study assumes that the locations in columns 1 and 2 would ship by large rail; the MPC evaluation assumes these locations would ship by small rail. The transportation strategy study assumes that the locations in column 3 would ship by small rail; the MPC evaluation assumes these locations would ship by large rail.


Table A-1. Utility Transportation Choice Scenarios: by Storage Location

      TRANSP CHOICE:         TRANSP CHOICE:
      ------- --------         ------- --------
#   FUEL STRG LOCATION: TS2 APD   #   FUEL STRG LOCATION: TS2 APD
    ------------------- ---- ----       ------------------- ---- ----
1   ARKANSAS NUCLEAR 1 R125 R75 | 67   NORTH ANNA DRY STRG R125 R125
2   ARKANSAS NUCLEAR 2 R125 R75 | 68   OCONEE 1&2 R125 LWT
3   ARKANSAS NUCLEAR DRY STRG   R125 R75 | 69   OCONEE 3 R125 LWT
4   BEAVER VALLEY 1 R125 R125 | 70   OCONEE DRY STORAGE R125 LWT
5   BEAVER VALLEY 2 R125 R125 | 71   OYSTER CREEK 1 R125 R75
6   BELLEFONTE 1 R125 R125 | 72   OYSTER CREEK DRY STRG   R125 R75
7   BELLEFONTE 2 R125 R125 | 73   PALISADES R125 R75
8   BIG ROCK 1 R75 LWT | 74   PALISADES DRY STORAGE R125 R75
9   BRAIDWOOD 1 R125 R125 | 75   PALO VERDE 1 R125 R125
10   BROWNS FERRY 1-2 R125 R125 | 76   PALO VERDE 2 R125 R125
11   BROWNS FERRY 3 R125 R125 | 77   PALO VERDE 3 R125 LWT
12   BRUNSWICK 1 R75 R125 | 78   PEACHBOTTOM 2 R125 LWT
13   BRUNSWICK 1 PWR POOL R75 R125 | 79   PEACHBOTTOM 3 R125 LWT
14   BRUNSWICK 2 R75 R125 | 80   PERRY 1 R125 R125
15   BRUNSWICK 2 PWR POOL R75 R125 | 81   PILGRIM 1 R75 R75
16   BYRON 1 R125 R125 | 82   POINT BEACH 1&2 R125 R125
17   CALLAWAY 1 R125 LWT | 83   POINT BEACH DRY STRG R125 R125
18   CALVERT CLIFFS 1-2 R125 R125 | 84   PRAIRIE ISLAND 1&2 R125 R125
19   CALVERT DRY STORAGE R125 R125 | 85   PRAIRIE ISLAND DRY STRG R125 R125
20   CATAWBA 1 R125 R125 | 86   QUAD CITIES 1 R75 R125
21   CATAWBA 2 R125 R125 | 87   RANCHO SECO 1 R125 R75
22   CLINTON 1 R125 R125 | 88   RANCHO SECO DRY STRG R125 R75
23   COMANCHE PEAK 1 R125 R125 | 89   RIVER BEND 1 R125 R125
24   COOK 1 R125 R125 | 90   ROBINSON 2 R75 R125
25   COOPER STATION R75 R75 | 91   ROBINSON DRY STORAGE R75 R125
26   CRYSTAL RIVER 3 R75 R75 | 92   SALEM 1 R125 R75
27   DAVIS-BESSE 1 R125 R125 | 93   SALEM 2 R125 R75
28   DAVIS-BESSE DRY STRG R125 R125 | 94   SAN ONOFRE 1 R125 LWT
29   DIABLO CANYON 1 R125 R125 | 95   SAN ONOFRE 2 R125 R125
30   DIABLO CANYON 2 R125 R125 | 96   SAN ONOFRE 3 R125 R125
31   DRESDEN 1 R75 LWT | 97   SEABROOK 1 R125 R125
32   DRESDEN 2 R75 R125 | 98   SEQUOYAH 1 R125 R125
33   DRESDEN 3 R75 R125 | 99   SHOREHAM NA NA
34   DUANE ARNOLD R125 R75 | 100   SOUTH TEXAS 1 R125 R125
35   ENRICO FERMI 2 R125 R125 | 101   SOUTH TEXAS 2 R125 R125
36   FARLEY 1 R125 R125 | 102   ST LUCIE 1 R125 R125
37   FARLEY 2 R125 R125 | 103   ST LUCIE 2 R125 R125
38   FITZPATRICK R125 R125 | 104   SUMMER 1 R125 R125
39   FORT CALHOUN R75 LWT | 105   SURRY 1&2 R125 R125
40   FORT ST VRAIN LWT LWT | 106   SURRY DRY STORAGE R125 R125
41   FORT ST VRAIN DRY STRG LWT LWT | 107   SUSQUEHANNA 1-2 R125 R125
42   GINNA LWT LWT | 108   SUSQUEHANNA DRY STRG R125 R125
43   GRAND GULF 1 R125 R125 | 109   THREE MILE ISLAND 1 R125 R75
44   HADDAM NECK LWT LWT | 110   TROJAN R125 R125
45   HARRIS 1 R125 R125 | 111   TURKEY POINT 3 R125 R75
46   HARRIS 1 BWR POOL R125 R125 | 112   TURKEY POINT 4 R125 R75
47   HATCH 1-2 R125 R125 | 113   VERMONT YANKEE 1 R75 R75
48   HOPE CREEK R125 R125 | 114   VOGTLE 1-2 R75 R125
49   HUMBOLDT BAY R75 LWT | 115   WASH NUCLEAR 2 R125 R125
50   INDIAN POINT 1 LWT LWT | 116   WATTS BAR 1&2 R125 R125
51   INDIAN POINT 2 LWT LWT | 117   WATERFORD 3 R125 R125
52   INDIAN POINT 3 LWT LWT | 118   WOLF CREEK 1 R125 R125
53   KEWAUNEE R125 R125 | 119   YANKEE-ROWE 1 R75 LWT
54   LACROSSE R75 T | 120   ZION 1&2 R125 R125
55   LASALLE 1-2 R125 R125 | 121   HANFORD SNF STRG LWT LWT
56   LIMERICK 1-2 R125 R125 | 122   HANFORD SNF STRG LWT LWT
57   MAINE YANKEE R125 R125 | 123   INEL SNF STRG LWT LWT
58   MCGUIRE 1 R125 R125 | 124   INEL SNF STRG LWT LWT
59   MCGUIRE 2 R125 R125 | 125   INEL SNF STRG LWT LWT
60   MILLSTONE 1 R75 R75 | 126   SAVANNAH RV SNF STRG LWT LWT
61   MILLSTONE 2 R75 R75 | 127   SAVANNAH RV SNF STRG LWT LWT
62   MILLSTONE 3 R75 R125 | 128   WEST VALLEY SNF STRG R125 LWT
63   MONTICELLO R75 R75 | 129   WEST VALLEY SNF STRG R125 LWT
64   NINE MILE POINT 1 R125 R125 | 130   MORRIS R125 R125
65   NINE MILE POINT 2 R125 R125 |   131   MORRIS R125 R125
66   NORTH ANNA 1&2 R125 R125 | 132   GENERAL ATOMICS LWT LWT
      ======= ====         ======= ====
Transp Choice: TR2: NV Transp Stategy, Study 2 (DOE: Feb 1996, Table F-3 & PIC)
  APD: MPC Prelim Evaluation (DOE: Mar 1993, Appendix D)

Shipment Cask Options: R125: Large MPC for up to 21 PWR or 40 BWR
  R75: Small MPC for up to 12 PWR or 24 BWR
  LWT: Legal-weight truck casks.... GA-4/9 if avail,
NLI-1/2 or NAC LWT otherwise

Table A-2. Cask Types Implied by DOE's Transportation Strategy Study 2

        PIC EVALUATION:
    DOE TR2:Tbl F3 -------------------------------------------------------------------
    ------------------------------ REAC   Est
  NUCLEAR REACTOR SITES: Casks MTU TYPE MTU/A A/Cask   C-Type
SITE#  ----------------------------- --------- ------- --------- --------- ---------   ---------
1 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR 1,2 128 1151 PWR 0.44 20   R125
2 BEAVER VALLEY 1,2 106 1015 PWR 0.46 21   R125
3 BELLEFONTE 1,2 0 0 PWR NA NA   ???
4 BIG ROCK 40 63 BWR 0.13 12   R75
5 BRAIDWOOD 1,2 119 1049 PWR 0.42 21   R125
6 BROWNS FERRY 1,2,3 210 1537 BWR 0.19 39   R125
7 BRUNSWICK 1,2 207 915 BWR 0.18 24   R75
8 BYRON 1,2 130 1147 PWR 0.42 21   R125
9 CALLAWAY 1 75 640 PWR 0.44 19   R125
10 CALVERT CLIFFS 1,2 145 1143 PWR 0.38 21   R125
11 CATAWBA 1,2 128 1193 PWR 0.43 22   R125
12 CLINTON 1 65 453 BWR 0.18 38   R125
13 COMANCHE PEAK 1,2 105 918 PWR 0.45 19   R125
14 COOK 1,2 146 1350 PWR 0.44 21   R125
15 COOPER STATION 106 458 BWR 0.19 23   R75
16 CRYSTAL RIVER 3 89 491 PWR 0.46 12   R75
17 DAVIS-BESSE 1 58 509 PWR 0.47 19   R125
18 DIABLO CANYON 1,2 133 1191 PWR 0.45 20   R125
19 DRESDEN 1,2,3 355 1424 BWR 0.17 23   R75
20 DUANE ARNOLD 64 457 BWR 0.18 39   R125
21 ENRICO FERMI 2 77 501 BWR 0.18 36   R125
22 FARLEY 1,2 123 1140 PWR 0.46 20   R125
23 FITZPATRICK 73 519 BWR 0.18 39   R125
34 FORT CALHOUN 89 381 PWR 0.36 12   R75
25 FORT ST VRAIN ??? ??? HTG 0.01 NA   T
26 GINNA ??? ??? PWR 0.38 NA   T
27 GRAND GULF 1 121 852 BWR 0.18 39   R125
28 HADDAM NECK ??? ??? PWR 0.41 NA   T
29 HARRIS 1 69 598 PWR 0.45 19   R125
30 HATCH 1,2 184 1332 BWR 0.18 39   R125
31 HOPE CREEK 101 717 BWR 0.19 38   R125
32 HUMBOLDT BAY 17 29 BWR 0.07 23   R75
33 INDIAN POINT 1,2,3 ??? ??? PWR 0.43 NA   T
34 KEWAUNEE 59 466 PWR 0.39 21   R125
35 LACROSSE 14 38 BWR 0.11 24   R75
36 LASALLE 1,2 176 1262 BWR 0.18 39   R125
37 LIMERICK 1,2 165 1129 BWR 0.18 37   R125
38 MAINE YANKEE 91 717 PWR 0.38 21   R125
39 MCGUIRE 1,2 151 1419 PWR 0.44 22   R125
40 MILLSTONE 1,2,3 347 1734 BWR 0.26 19   R75
41 MONTICELLO 95 394 BWR 0.18 23   R75
42 NINE MILE POINT 1,2 148 1030 BWR 0.19 38   R125
43 NORTH ANNA 1,2 131 1149 PWR 0.46 19   R125
44 OCONEE 1,2,3 204 1897 PWR 0.46 20   R125
45 OYSTER CREEK 1 92 651 BWR 0.18 39   R125
46 PALISADES 69 575 PWR 0.40 21   R125
47 PALO VERDE 1,2,3 204 1687 PWR 0.41 20   R125
48 PEACHBOTTOM 2,3 225 1602 BWR 0.18 38   R125
49 PERRY 1 86 605 BWR 0.18 38   R125
50 PILGRIM 1 117 506 BWR 0.19 23   R75
51 POINT BEACH 1,2 107 837 PWR 0.39 20   R125
52 PRAIRIE ISLAND 1,2 106 807 PWR 0.38 20   R125
53 QUAD CITIES 1,2 314 1347 BWR 0.18 23   R75
54 RANCHO SECO 1 24 228 PWR 0.46 21   R125
55 RIVER BEND 1 69 488 BWR 0.18 38   R125
56 ROBINSON 2 70 345 PWR 0.44 11   R75
57 SALEM 1,2 123 1136 PWR 0.46 20   R125
58 SAN ONOFRE 1,2,3 175 1469 PWR 0.40 21   R125
59 SEABROOK 1 47 439 PWR 0.46 20   R125
60 SEQUOYAH 1,2 103 979 PWR 0.46 21   R125
61 SHOREHAM 0 0 BWR NA NA   NA
62 SOUTH TEXAS 1,2 76 808 PWR 0.54 20   R125
63 ST. LUCIE 1,2 147 1151 PWR 0.38 21   R125
64 SUMMER 1 59 525 PWR 0.45 20   R125
65 SURRY 1,2 120 1085 PWR 0.46 20   R125
66 SUSQUEHANNA 1,2 211 1470 BWR 0.18 39   R125
67 THREE MILE ISLAND 1 56 523 PWR 0.46 20   R125
68 TROJAN 38 359 PWR 0.46 21   R125
69 TURKEY POINT 3,4 107 1011 PWR 0.46 21   R125
70 VERMONT YANKEE 1 138 602 BWR 0.18 24   R75
71 VOGTLE 1,2 218 1024 PWR 0.46 10   R75
72 WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2,3 81 555 BWR 0.18 38   R125
73 WATERFORD 3 75 597 PWR 0.41 19   R125
74 WATTS BAR 1,2 32 300 PWR 0.46 20   R125
75 WOLF CREEK 1 63 575 PWR 0.46 20   R125
76 YANKEE-ROWE 1 45 127 PWR 0.24 12   R75
77 ZION 1,2 144 1375 PWR 0.46 21   R125
  --------------------- ------- --------- ------ ----    
  Sub-Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8385 60195   0.28 25    
    =======================================================

Previous | Table of Contents: | Proceed


Return to the
Nuclear Waste Project Office
Home Page
State of Nevada
Nuclear Waste Project Office
Capitol Complex
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 687-3744 voice
(702) 687-5277 fax
nwpo@govmail.state.nv.us e-mail

*