Spent nuclear fuel shipping cask: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 17:08, 22 August 2015

Redirect to:

Nuclear flask

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Merge|Nuclear flask|date=September 2012}}
+#REDIRECT [[Nuclear flask]]
-{{More footnotes|date=February 2008}}[[Image:Shipping Cask 01.jpg|thumb|right|A typical SNF shipping cask mounted on a railroad car.]]
-'''Spent nuclear fuel shipping casks''' are used to transport [[nuclear fuel|spent nuclear fuel]]<ref>http://www.wnti.co.uk/UserFiles/FS4_EN_AUG10_V1.pdf</ref> used in [[nuclear power plants]] and research reactors to disposal sites such as the [[nuclear reprocessing]] center at [[COGEMA La Hague site]]. Each [[shipping container]] is designed to maintain its integrity under normal transportation conditions and during hypothetical accident conditions.
-==United States==
-[[Image:Shipping Cask 02.jpg|thumb|upright|right|A typical small SNF shipping cask being mounted on a truck.]]
-[[File:Nuclear waste container 2010 nevada.jpg| thumb| A Nuclear Waste Container coming out of the [[United States Department of Energy|Department of Energy]] run [[Nevada National Security Site]] on public roads.]]
-In the [[United States]], the acceptability of the design of each cask is judged against Title 10, Part 71, of the Code of Federal Regulations (other nations' shipping casks, possibly excluding Russia's, are designed and tested to similar standards (International Atomic Energy Agency "Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material" No. TS-R-1)). The designs must demonstrate (possibly by computer modelling) protection against radiological release to the environment under all four of the following hypothetical accident conditions, designed to encompass 99% of all accidents:
-*A 9 meter (30&nbsp;ft) free fall on to an unyielding surface
-*A puncture test allowing the container to free-fall 1 meter (about 39&nbsp;inches) onto a steel rod 15 centimeters (about 6&nbsp;inches) in diameter
-*A 30-minute, all-engulfing fire at 800 degrees Celsius (1475 degrees Fahrenheit)
-*An 8-hour immersion under 0.9 meter (3&nbsp;ft) of water.
-*Further, an undamaged package must be subjected to a one-hour immersion under 200 meters (655&nbsp;ft) of water.
-In addition, between 1975 and 1977 [[Sandia National Laboratories]] conducted full-scale crash tests on spent nuclear fuel shipping casks.<ref>http://www.sandia.gov/recordsmgmt/ctb1.html</ref><ref>http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cask.htm</ref> Although the casks were damaged, none would have leaked.<ref>http://www.sandia.gov/media/firetest.htm</ref>
-Although the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has the primary responsibility for regulating the safe transport of radioactive materials in the United States, the [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] (NRC) requires that licensees and carriers involved in spent fuel shipments:
-*Follow only approved routes;
-*Provide armed escorts for heavily populated areas;
-*Use immobilization devices;
-*Provide monitoring and redundant communications;
-*Coordinate with law enforcement agencies before shipments; and
-*Notify in advance the NRC and States through which the shipments will pass.
-Since 1965, approximately 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel have been transported safely over the U.S.'s highways, waterways, and railroads.
-==Canada==
-By comparison there has been limited spent nuclear fuel transport in [[Canada]]. Transportation casks have been designed for truck and rail transport and Canada’s regulatory body granted approval for casks, which may be used for barge shipments as well. [[Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission]] regulations prohibit the disclosure of location, routing and timing of shipments of nuclear materials, such as spent fuel.<ref>http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/</ref>
-==United Kingdom==
-<!-- Deleted image removed: [[Image:Nuclear-rail-flask.JPG|thumb|right|Diagram showing the internal layout of a UK nuclear flask]] -->
-{{main|Nuclear flask}}
-Over the past 35 years, [[BNFL|British Nuclear Fuels plc]] (BNFL) and its subsidiary PNTL have conducted over 14,000 cask shipments of SNF worldwide, transporting more than 9,000 tonnes of SNF over 16 million miles via road, rail, and sea without a radiological release. BNFL designed, licensed, and currently own and operate a fleet of approximately 170 casks of the Excellox design.{{Citation needed|date=May 2008}} BNFL has maintained a fleet of transport casks to ship
-SNF for the [[United Kingdom]], continental [[Europe]], and [[Japan]] for [[Nuclear reprocessing|reprocessing]].
-In the UK a series of public demonstrations were conducted in which spent fuel flasks (loaded with steel bars) were subjected to simulated accident conditions. A randomly selected flask (''never used for holding used fuel'') from the production line was first dropped from a tower. The flask was dropped in such a way that the weakest part of it would hit the ground first. The lid of the flask was slightly damaged but very little material escaped from the flask. A little water escaped from the flask but it was thought that in a real accident that the escape of radioactivity associated with this water would not be a threat to humans or their environment.
-For a second test the same flask was fitted with a new lid, filled again with steel bars and water before a train was driven into it at high speed. The flask survived with only cosmetic damage while the train was destroyed. Although referred to as a test, the actual stresses the flask underwent were well below what they are designed to withstand, as much of the energy from the collision was absorbed by the train and also in moving the flask some distance.
-This flask is on display at the training center at [[Heysham nuclear power station|Heysham 1 Power Station]].
-==Baltimore train tunnel fire==
-{{main|Howard Street Tunnel fire}}
-On July 18, 2001, a freight train carrying hazardous (non-nuclear) materials derailed and caught fire while passing through the Howard Street railroad tunnel in downtown [[Baltimore, Maryland]], [[United States]].<ref name=nrctunnel>[http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6886/ Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response to the Baltimore Tunnel Fire Scenario (NUREG/CR-6886)], November 2006, [http://www.nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission], Retrieved 2007-6-8</ref> The fire burned for 3 days, with temperatures as high as 1000 °C (1800 °F).<ref name=nvtunnel>[http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2003/pdf/nv030225c.pdf Implications of the Baltimore Rail Tunnel Fire for Full-Scale Testing of Shipping Casks], February 25, 2003, [http://www.state.nv.us State of Nevada], Retrieved 2007-6-8</ref> Since the casks are designed for a 30-minute fire at 800 °C (1475 °F), several reports have been made regarding the inability of the casks to survive a fire similar to the Baltimore one. However, nuclear waste would never be transported together with hazardous (flammable or explosive) materials on the same train or track.
-===State of Nevada===
-The State of [[Nevada]], [[United States|USA]], released a report entitled, "Implications of the Baltimore Rail Tunnel Fire for Full-Scale Testing of Shipping Casks" on February 25, 2003. In the report, they said a hypothetical spent nuclear fuel accident based on the Baltimore fire:<ref name=nvtunnel/>
-*"Concluded steel-lead-steel cask would have failed after 6.3 hours; monolithic steel cask would have failed after 11-12.5 hours."
-*"Contaminated Area: 32 square miles (82&nbsp;km<sup>2</sup>)"
-*"Latent cancer fatalities: 4,000-28,000 over 50 years (200-1,400 during first year)"
-*"Cleanup cost: $13.7 Billion (2001 Dollars)"
-===National Academy of Sciences===
-The [[United States National Academy of Sciences|National Academy of Sciences]], at the request of the State of Nevada, produced a report on July 25, 2003. The report concluded that the following should be done:<ref>[http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2003/pdf/nas_resnikoff.pdf Baltimore Tunnel Fire], July 25, 2003, [http://www.state.nv.us State of Nevada], Retrieved 2007-6-8</ref>
-*"Need to 3-D model (bolts, seals, etc) more than HI-STAR cask for extreme fire environments."
-*"For safety and risk analysis, casks should be physically tested to destruction."
-*"NRC should release all thermal calculations; Holtec is withholding allegedly proprietary information."
-===NRC===
-The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a report on November 2006. It concluded:<ref name=nrctunnel/>
-:The results of this evaluation also strongly indicate that neither spent nuclear fuel (SNF) particles nor fission products would be released from a spent fuel transportation package carrying intact spent fuel involved in a severe tunnel fire such as the Baltimore tunnel fire. None of the three package designs analyzed for the Baltimore tunnel fire scenario (TN-68, HI-STAR 100, and NAC LWT) experienced internal temperatures that would result in rupture of the fuel cladding. Therefore, radioactive material (i.e., SNF particles or fission products) would be retained within the fuel rods.
-:There would be no release from the HI-STAR 100, because the inner welded canister remains leak tight. While a release is unlikely, the potential releases calculated for the TN-68 rail package and the NAC LWT truck package indicate that any release of CRUD from either package would be very small - less than an A2 quantity.
-==Rail security==
-[[Image:Nuclear waste flask train at Bristol Temple Meads 02.jpg|thumb|right|Wagon with transport cabin containing a UK nuclear waste flask]]
-On July 21, 2006, the [[United Kingdom|British]] newspaper [[The Daily Mirror]] reported that one of their reporters was easily able to plant a fake bomb on a train carrying nuclear waste. The reporter, "exploited security lapses to wander up to the unattended wagons at a North West London depot."  The newspaper quoted an expert stating that an attack on containers of radioactive waste could kill over 8,000 people and release a poisonous cloud of up to {{convert|100|sqmi|km2|1}} across Britain. They also reported that the train could have been hijacked by anyone with a basic knowledge of driving trains.<ref name=mirror>{{Cite news |url=http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/re/daily_mirror_nukes2.htm  <!-- dead link: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17422378&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=we-plant--bomb--on-nuke-train-name_page.html --> |title=We plant 'bomb' on nuke train |first=Tom |last=Parry |date=July 21, 2006 |work=[[Daily Mirror]]}}</ref>
-The rail company spokeswoman initially claimed that getting close to the nuclear flasks was not possible. However, after seeing the Mirror's photographic evidence that they did exactly that, she stated, "The entire journey is protected by very stringent security. However, having seen these pictures we will speak with our security people. A full investigation will be carried out."<ref name=mirror/>
-<!-- additional ref of incident:
-{{Cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/5202024.stm |date=21 July 2006 |title='Terror risk' over nuclear cargo |work=[[BBC News]]}}
--->
-==See also==
-*[[Deep geological repository]]
-*[[Dry cask storage]]
-*[[Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents]]
-*[[Nuclear flask]]
-*[[Nuclear fuel cycle]]
-*[[Spent fuel pool]]
-==Notes==
-{{Reflist}}
-==References==
-{{USGovernment|sourceURL=[http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6886/ Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response to the Baltimore Tunnel Fire Scenario (NUREG/CR-6886)]}}
-==External links==
-*[http://www.ustransportcouncil.org U.S. Transport Council]
-*[http://www.uic.com.au/nip23.htm Japanese Waste and MOX Shipments From Europe]
-*[http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0292/ Nuclear Regulatory Commission "Safety of Spent Fuel Transportation" (NUREG/BR-0292)]
-*[http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/transport-spenfuel-radiomats-bg.html Nuclear Regulatory Commission Backgrounder on Transportation of Spent Fuel and Radioactive Materials]
-*[http://www.trex-center.org/casks.asp List of casks licensed, with links]
-*[http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad0211avoiland.html Pro-nuclear group's summary]
-*[http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0500.shtml OCRWM Fact Sheet]
-*[http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/thisweek/2003_3_3_othr.html Critique of proposed expanded tests]
-*[http://www.privatefuelstorage.com/faqs/faq-transportation.html Private Fuel Storage, LLC's Q&A]
-*[http://www.state.il.us/idns/pdfs/pubPDF/IEMA%20035.pdf State of Illinois pamphlet]
-*[http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/ Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission]
-*[http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/n-28.3/sor-2000-208/154290.html Canadian Packaging and Transport of Nuclear Substances Regulations]
-*[http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0952-4746/13/4/006/jr930406.pdf Fuel Solutions Inc.(BFS), the world’s largest shippers of nuclear materials]
-*[http://www.wnti.co.uk World Nuclear Transport Institute]
-*[http://www.sandia.gov/tp/SAFE_RAM/MOVIES/RAIL2.AVI]
-*[http://www.sandia.gov/tp/SAFE_RAM/MOVIES/TRUCK2.AVI]
-*[http://www.sandia.gov/tp/SAFE_RAM/MOVIES/BFIRE.AVI]
-[[Category:Nuclear technology]]
-[[Category:Radioactive waste]]
-[[Category:Shipping containers]]
-[[Category:Hazardous materials]]
-[[Category:Nuclear reprocessing]]
-[[de:Transportbehälter (Kerntechnik)]]