Nuclear Waste Transport: An Introduction

1
Nuclear Waste TransportAn Introduction

• June 26, 2002 Training Room A

Sponsored by Lynchburg NA-YGN
2
Nuculear.its pronounced Nuculear.
3
OVERVIEW

• Background
• Putting Used Fuel Transport into Perspective
• Transportation Security
• Severe Accident Conditions
• Accidents Can Happen
• Emergency Response
• Common Myths

4
Background

• NA-YGN
• NA-YGN Communications Conference
• Countering the Fear Campaign - Transportation
  Specifics
• Eileen M. Supko, Energy Resources International,
  Inc.
• NEI Yucca Mountain Resource Book
• Sandia National Labs

5
Putting Used Fuel Transport into Perspective

• Annually, 300 million packages of hazardous
  materials are shipped in U.S.
• 1 of these are radioactive materials, or 3
  million packages.
• Majority are radio pharmaceuticals or
  radioisotopes used in medical applications
• 250,000 contain radioactive materials from
  nuclear power plant operation (primarily LLW)

6
Used Fuel Transport

• Presently, fewer than 100 shipments of used
  nuclear fuel occur annually
• More than 3,000 used fuel shipments in U.S. over
  past 40 years
• More than 21,000 used fuel shipments
  internationally over past 40 years

7
Used Fuel Transport Security

• Robust transport container design provides first
  level of security
• NRC approved route and security plan
• Advance notification to Governors prior to
  shipments
• Dates of shipments not publicized
• Satellite tracking use of communications
  equipment
• Periodic update of route conditions
• Armed escorts in urban areas elsewhere as
  required by State
• Locking devices on trucks preventing unauthorized
  movement
• New NRC is expected within the next two months
  to issue orders requiring armed escorts for the
  entire route of any spent fuel shipment.
  NUCLEONICS WEEKVol. 43 No. 23 June 6, 2002

8
Used Fuel Transport Security

• A system of safeguards exists to ensure safety
  during used fuel transportation
• NRC and DOE have performed studies and tests to
  assess the risks of sabotage to used fuel
  transportation
• NRC periodically reviews potential threats with
  law enforcement agencies
• NRC re-examines safeguards and security for used
  fuel transport as necessary

9
Used Fuel Transport Safety

• Accidents can happen.
• That is why used fuel shipping containers are
  designed to withstand severe accidents.
• There have been 8 transport accidents involving
  used fuel containers in the U.S.
• Four of the accidents involved empty containers.
• There has NEVER been a release of the radioactive
  contents.

10
The Casks

• Type B Packaging
• Used for spent fuel
• Truck Rail Casks
• PWR rail cask
• 24 to 32 assemblies
• BWR rail cask
• 52 to 68 assemblies
• PWR truck cask
• 2 to 4 assemblies
• BWR truck cask
• 9 assemblies

11
The Casks

• Type B Packagings have either
• Certificate Of Compliance (COC) by the NRC
• Certificate of Competent Authority (COCA) by the
  DOT

12
Regulatory Accident Conditions

• Prior to certification by the NRC, used fuel
  transport casks must be shown to meet a series of
  hypothetical accident conditions
• Drop
• Puncture
• Thermal (fire)
• Water Submersion
• These can be done through physical testing and
  through the use of computer modeling

13
30-Foot Drop Onto Unyielding Surface
14
30-Foot Drop Onto Unyielding Surface
15
30-Foot Drop Onto Unyielding Surface
Unyielding Target vs. Concrete Target
UNYIELDING TARGET
CONCRETE TARGET
16
Real-life Comparison

• 1,000,000 lbs force present in this accident.
• May 2, 1995
• Tractor and lowbed semi trailer became lodged on
  railroad grade and were struck by train.
• If truck was carrying cask
• The package would have only sustained minor
  damage.
• There may have been some crushing of the impact
  limiter and denting of the outside of the
  package.
• There would have been no release of radioactive
  material.

17
Real-life Comparison (contd)

• If train was carrying cask
• There would have been no release of radioactive
  material.

18
Puncture - Drop Onto Steel Spike
19
Puncture - Drop Onto Steel Spike
20
Real-life Comparison

• 1,000,000 lbs force present in this accident.
• July 2, 1997
• Westbound Train Collides With Eastbound Train
• Following the collision, a fire caused by
  punctured locomotive fuel tanks and automobiles
  on the eastbound train, engulfed the derailed
  cars and locomotives.

21
Real-life Comparison (contd)

• The puncture of the locomotive fuel tanks was
  most likely caused by a rail coupler.
• If rail coupler were to strike the cask.
• The package would not have been penetrated by the
  coupler
• There would have been no release of radioactive
  material.

22
Thermal Test - 1475º F Engulfing Fire
23
Real-life Comparison

• October 9, 1997
• Sedan Collides With Gasoline Tanker Under an
  Overpass
• If cask were present
• The package may have suffered some damage
• No release of radioactive material

24
Baltimore Tunnel Fire - July 2001

• Nevada has sponsored analysis of the tunnel fire
  assuming used fuel containers involved
• The analysis is premature
• NTSB report not yet complete
• The fire duration and temperature are not known
  relied on media reports
• Preliminary NRC review of same incident showed
  that containers and fuel remain intact

25
Submersion - 3 ft. of Water For 8 hours
26
Real-life Comparison

• August 24, 1999
• Cargo Ship and Cruise Ship Collision
• If cask was present and pushed into sea
• No release of radioactive material

• What would have happened if a ship with
  sufficient size and weight struck and penetrated
  a cask carrying ship?
• The cask would be pushed through the hull and out
  into the sea without being significantly damaged.
  
• There would be no release of radioactive
  material.

27
Accidents Can Happen

• Since 1960, trains and trucks carrying a total of
  5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel have
  traveled 1.6 million miles and had eight
  accidents, none of which released any radioactive
  material.
• Dec. 8, 1971. In Tennessee, the driver of a truck
  carrying waste swerved off the road in a
  rainstorm. The truck rolled over into a ditch,
  killing the driver. The cask carrying the waste
  was thrown off the truck. The cask was not
  damaged, and no material leaked.
• March 29, 1974. In a North Carolina rail yard, a
  train derailed and struck another train that was
  carrying an empty cask designed to carry nuclear
  fuel. Damage to the cask was superficial.
• Feb. 9, 1978. In Illinois, the trailer of a truck
  hauling nuclear waste collapsed while the truck
  was crossing a railroad track. The cask was not
  damaged. No material leaked.

28
Accidents Can Happen (contd)

• Aug. 13, 1978. In New Jersey, an empty
  nuclear-fuel cask was being placed on a trailer
  when the trailer deck failed because of a broken
  weld. The cask was not damaged.
• Dec. 9, 1983. On the southern Indiana-Illinois
  border, a waste-hauling truck separated from its
  trailer, which was carrying a nuclear-fuel cask.
  The cask was not damaged. There were no leaks.
• March 24, 1987. In St. Louis, a train carrying
  nuclear waste collided with a car at a road
  crossing. The cask was not damaged. There were no
  leaks.
• Jan. 9, 1988. In Nebraska, a train carrying an
  empty cask derailed. The cask was not damaged.
• Dec. 14, 1995. In North Carolina, a train
  carrying empty casks derailed. The casks were not
  damaged.
• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 6/11/2002

29
Emergency Response

• Local State authorities have role as first
  responders
• DOE will provide technical assistance and funding
  to States and tribes for emergency response
  training
• Upon request, Federal agency assistance is
  available FEMA, DOE, DOT, NRC

30
Common Myths
31
Common Myths

• Myth Used fuel containers havent been tested
  using full scale tests and therefore are not
  safe
• Fact
• Containers undergo a series of scale model tests
  and computer simulation to ensure that safety
  requirements are met
• Computer models were validated using physical
  tests
• The use of scale model tests is accepted
  engineering practice
• Because leakage past seals does not scale,
  packages that are certified using scale model
  tests enforce no-deformation in the closure
  region to guarantee there is no leakage.

32
Common Myths

• Myth The routes for shipping used fuel must be
  determined before a decision on Yucca Mountain
• Fact It would be premature to choose routes for
  shipment more than ten years in advance. At the
  appropriate time, routing studies will be
  completed with input from States and stakeholders.

33
Common Myths

• Myth There will be more than 100,000 shipments
  of used nuclear fuel over next 30 years
• Fact
• The majority of shipments will be made by rail
• There will be between 15,000 and 20,000 shipments
  over 30 to 40 years
• This is approximately 300 to 500 shipments of
  commercial used fuel per year

34
Common Myths

• Myth The number of used fuel shipments
  associated with transport to a Federal facility
  would be unprecedented
• Fact The precedent for used fuel shipments has
  been established in Europe 300 to 500 shipments
  per year. This is what is planned in the U.S.

35
Use the Internet

• Be familiar with anti-nuclear web sites and
  literature
• If youve heard a myth once, youll hear it
  again, and again, and .
• A picture is worth a thousand words
• Use industry transportation videos
• NEI Fact Sheets and resources

36
Web Sites to Monitor

• Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office
  http//www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
• Nuclear Information Resources Service (NIRS)
  http//www.nirs.org/
• Public Citizen http//www.citizen.org/CMEP/
• Nuclear Energy Information Service
  http//www.neis.org/
• Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
  http//www.bredl.org/
• Union of Concerned Scientists http//www.ucsusa.o
  rg/
• Institute for Energy Environmental Research
  http//www.ieer.org/
• Greenpeace USA http//www.greenpeaceusa.org
• Nuclear Control Institute http//www.nci.org/

37
(No Transcript)