Utility-DOE Interface Considerations of the Universal Container Systems Concept

Rasmussen, Robert; Jordan, Julie; Smith, Marvin; Supko, Eileen; ,

Utility-DOE Interface Considerations of the Universal Container Systems Concept

by Robert Rasmussen, Duke Power Co, Charlotte, United States,
Julie Jordan, Duke Power Co, Charlotte, United States,
Marvin Smith, Duke Power Co, Charlotte, United States,
Eileen Supko, Duke Power Co, Charlotte, United States,

Document Type: Proceeding Paper

Part of: High Level Radioactive Waste Management 1993

Abstract:

This paper discusses the utility-DOE interface issues that must be addressed by the Department of Energy (DOE), the utility industry, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prior to implementation of a universal container system (UCS) as an alternative to the current Reference Waste Management System. A brief background is presented discussing the reasons a UCS appears to benefit the waste management system, including a reduction in spent fuel handling, simplified DOE storage and transportation systems, and simplified repository design and operation. In December 1992, the Secretary of Energy announced that the current negotiated siting process is not expected to lead to an operational monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility by January 1998. Therefore, DOE outlined a strategy for initiating spent fuel acceptance from utilities in 1998 that includes the use of federal government sites for interim storage and the development of the UCS concept. (Within this paper, references to the MRS facility also include interim storage facilities.) Issues that must be addressed by the utilities and DOE prior to implementing a UCS include: universal container systems design, universal container system options, delivery of universal containers to reactor sites, procurement of universal containers, interface between UCS overpack designs, containment verification requirements, effects on current waste program activities, effect of repository design considerations on utility fuel selection, and total systems cost comparison.

Return to search