tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Science and Global Security, 11:1–51, 2003
C 2003 Taylor and Francis
Copyright °0892-9882/03 $12.00 + .00
DOI: 10.1080/08929880390214124

Reducing the Hazards fromStored Spent Power-Reactor
Fuel in the United States
Robert Alvarez, Jan Beyea, Klaus Janberg, Jungmin Kang,
Ed Lyman, Allison Macfarlane, Gordon Thompson,Frank N. von Hippel
Because of the unavailability of off-site storage for spent power-reactor fuel, the NRC
has allowed high-density storage of spent fuel in pools originally designed to hold muchsmaller inventories. As a result, virtually all U.S. spent-fuel pools have been re-racked
to hold spent-fuel assemblies at densities that approach those in reactor cores. In orderto prevent the spent fuel from going critical, the fuel assemblies are partitioned off fromeach other in metal boxes whose walls contain neutron-absorbing boron. It has been
known for more than two decades that, in case of a loss of water in the pool, convective
air cooling would be relatively ineffective in such a “dense-packed” pool. Spent fuelrecently discharged from a reactor could heat up relatively rapidly to temperatures atwhich the zircaloy fuel cladding could catch fire and the fuel’s volatile fission products,
Received 9 December 2000; accepted 22 January 2003.
Robert Alvarez, Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies, 733 15 St NW, Suite 1025,
Washington, DC. E-mail: kitbob@erols.com
Jan Beyea, Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton St, Lambertville, NJ 08530.
E-mail: jbeyea@cipi.com
Klaus Janberg, 40 J.P. Melchiorstr., 40996, Ratingen, Germany. E-mail: klaus@
janberg.de
Jungmin Kang, 101-1005 Chunggu Apt., Jamwon-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, South
Korea. E-mail: jmkang55@hotmail.com
Ed Lyman, Nuclear Control Institute, Suite 410, 1000 Conn. Ave, NW, Washington, DC
20036. E-mail: lyman@nci.org
Allison Macfarlane, Security Studies Program, Center for International Studies,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, E38-620, 292 Main Street, Cambridge, MA
02139. E-mail: allisonm@mit.edu
Gordon Thompson, Institute for Resource and Security Studies, 27 Ellsworth Avenue,
Cambridge, MA 02139. E-mail: irss@igc.org
Frank N. von Hippel, Program on Science and Global Security, 221 Nassau St, 2nd
Floor, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08542-4601. E-mail: fvhippel@princeton.edu

1

tj715-03

SGS.cls2

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.
including 30-year half-life 137 Cs, would be released. The fire could well spread to older
spent fuel. The long-term land-contamination consequences of such an event could besignificantly worse than those from Chernobyl.
No such event has occurred thus far. However, the consequences would affect sucha large area that alternatives to dense-pack storage must be examined—especially inthe context of concerns that terrorists might find nuclear facilities attractive targets.
To reduce both the consequences and probability of a spent-fuel-pool fire, it is proposedthat all spent fuel be transferred from wet to dry storage within five years of discharge.
The cost of on-site dry-cask storage for an additional 35,000 tons of older spent fuel isestimated at $3.5–7 billion dollars or 0.03–0.06 cents per kilowatt-hour generated fromthat fuel. Later cost savings could offset some of this cost when the fuel is shipped offsite. The transfer to dry storage could be accomplished within a decade. The removalof the older fuel would reduce the average inventory of 137 Cs in the pools by about afactor of four, bringing it down to about twice that in a reactor core. It would also makepossible a return to open-rack storage for the remaining more recently discharged fuel.
If accompanied by the installation of large emergency doors or blowers to provide largescale airflow through the buildings housing the pools, natural convection air coolingof this spent fuel should be possible if airflow has not been blocked by collapse of thebuilding or other cause. Other possible risk-reduction measures are also discussed.
Our purpose in writing this article is to make this problem accessible to a broader
audience than has been considering it, with the goal of encouraging further public discussion and analysis. More detailed technical discussions of scenarios that could resultin loss-of-coolant from spent-fuel pools and of the likelihood of spent-fuel fires resulting
are available in published reports prepared for the NRC over the past two decades. Although it may be necessary to keep some specific vulnerabilities confidential, we believethat a generic discussion of the type presented here can and must be made available sothat interested experts and the concerned public can hold the NRC, nuclear-power-plant
operators, and independent policy analysts such as ourselves accountable.

INTRODUCTIONThe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has estimated the probabilityof a loss of coolant from a spent-fuel storage pool to be so small (about 10−6
per pool-year) that design requirements to mitigate the consequences have notbeen required.1 As a result, the NRC continues to permit pools to move fromopen-rack configurations, for which natural-convection air cooling would havebeen effective, to “dense-pack” configurations that eventually fill pools almost
wall to wall. A 1979 study done for the NRC by the Sandia National Laboratory
showed that, in case of a sudden loss of all the water in a pool, dense-packed
spent fuel, even a year after discharge, would likely heat up to the point where
its zircaloy cladding would burst and then catch fire.2 This would result in the
airborne release of massive quantities of fission products.
No such event has occurred thus far. However, the consequences would be
so severe that alternatives to dense-pack storage must be examined—especiallytj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards

in the context of heightened concerns that terrorists could find nuclear facilities
attractive targets.
The NRC’s standard approach to estimating the probabilities of nuclear
accidents has been to rely on fault-tree analysis. This involves quantitative
estimates of the probability of release scenarios due to sequences of equipment
failure, human error, and acts of nature. However, as the NRC staff stated ina June 2001 briefing on risks from stored spent nuclear fuel:3 “No establishedmethod exists for quantitatively estimating the likelihood of a sabotage eventat a nuclear facility.”
Recently, the NRC has denied petitions by citizen groups seeking enhanced
protections from terrorist acts against reactor spent-fuel pools.4 In its decision,
the NRC has asserted that “the possibility of a terrorist attack . . . is speculativeand simply too far removed from the natural or expected consequences of agency
action . . . ”5
In support of its decision, the NRC stated: “Congress has recognized theneed for and encouraged high-density spent fuel storage at reactor sites,”6 referencing the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). In fact, although the
NWPA cites the need for “the effective use of existing storage facilities, andnecessary additional storage, at the site of each civilian nuclear power reactor
consistent with public health and safety,” it does not explicitly endorse densepack storage.7
If probabilistic analysis is of little help for evaluating the risks of terrorism,
the NRC and the U.S. Congress will have to make a judgment of the probability
estimates that will be used in cost-benefit analyses. Here, we propose physicalchanges to spent-fuel storage arrangements that would correct the most obvious
vulnerabilities of pools to loss of coolant and fire. The most costly of these proposals, shifting fuel to dry cask storage about 5 years after discharge from a reactor, would cost $3.5–7 billion for dry storage of the approximately 35,000 tonsof older spent fuel that would otherwise be stored in U.S. pools in 2010. This
corresponds to about 0.03–0.06 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated
from the fuel. Some of this cost could be recovered later if it reduced costs forthe shipment of the spent fuel off-site to a long-term or permanent storagesite.
For comparison, the property losses from the deposition downwind of thecesium-137 released by a spent-fuel-pool fire would likely be hundreds of billionsof dollars. The removal of the older spent fuel to dry storage would therefore bejustified by a traditional cost-benefit analysis if the likelihood of a spent-fuelpool fire in the U.S. during the next 30 years were judged to be greater thanabout a percent. Other actions recommended below could be justified by much
lower probabilities.

3

tj715-03

SGS.cls

4

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.

It appears unlikely that the NRC will decide its own to require such actions. According to its Inspector General, the “NRC appears to have informallyestablished an unreasonably high burden of requiring absolute proof of a safety
problem, versus lack of a reasonable assurance of maintaining public health andsafety . . . ”8This situation calls for more explicit guidance from Congress. Indeed,
27 state Attorneys General have recently signed a letter to Congressional leaders asking for legislation to “protect our states and communities from terrorist
attacks against civilian nuclear power plants and other sensitive nuclear facilities,” specifically mentioning spent-fuel pools.9
Congress could do this by updating the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to require“defense in depth” for pool storage; and the minimization of pool inventories ofspent fuel. The second requirement would involve the transfer, over a transition
period of not more than a decade, of all spent fuel more than five years post
discharge to dry, hardened storage modes.
To establish the basis for an informed, democratic decision on risk-reduction
measures, it would be desirable to have the relevant analysis available to a fullrange of concerned parties, including state and local governments and concerned citizens. Despite the need to keep sensitive details confidential, we believe that we have demonstrated in this article that analysts can describe anddebate a range of measures in an open process. The same can be done in the regulatory area. Evidentiary hearings held under NRC rules already have specificprovisions to exclude security details—along with proprietary and confidential
personnel information—from the public record.
In outline, we describe:¨The huge inventories of the long-lived, volatile fission product cesium-137(137 Cs) that are accumulating in U.S. spent fuel pools and the consequences
if the inventory of one of these pools were released to the atmosphere as aresult of a spent-fuel fire;¨

The various types of events that have been discussed in the public recordthat could cause a loss of coolant and the high radiation levels that would
result in the building above the pool as a result of the loss of the radiation
shielding provided by the water;¨

The limitations of the various cooling mechanisms for dry spent fuel: conduction, infra-red radiation, steam cooling and convective air cooling;¨

Possible measures to reduce the vulnerability of pools to a loss of coolant
event and to provide emergency cooling if such an event should occur; andtj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards¨

The feasibility of moving spent fuel from pools into dry-cask storage within
5 years after discharge from the reactor. This would allow open-rack storageof the more-recently discharged fuel, which would make convective aircooling more effective in case of a loss of water, and would reduce theaverage inventory of 137 Cs in U.S. spent-fuel pools by about a factor of
four.

There are 103 commercial nuclear reactors operating in the U.S. at 65 sites
in 31 states (Figure 1).11 Of these, 69 are pressurized-water reactors (PWRs)
and 34 are boiling-water reactors (BWRs). In addition there are 14 previouslyoperating light-water-cooled power reactors in various stages of decommissioning. Some of these reactors share spent-fuel pools, so that there is a total of 65
PWR and 34 BWR pools.12 Figure 2 shows diagrams of “generic” pressurizedwater reactor (PWR) and boiling-water-reactor (BWR) spent-fuel pools.13 For
simplicity, when we do illustrative calculations in this article, we use PWR fueland pool designs. However, the results of detailed studies done for the NRC
show that our qualitative conclusions are applicable to BWRs as well.14

Figure 1: Locations of nuclear power plants in the United States. Circles represent sites with
one reactor, squares represent plants with two; and stars represent plants with three. Opensymbols represent sites with at least one shutdown reactor. Only the plant in Zion, Illinois has
more than one shutdown reactor. It has two (Source: authors10 ).

5tj715-03

SGS.cls

6

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.

Figure 2a: Layout of spent fuel pool and transfer system for pressurized water reactors(Source: NUREG-1275, 1997).

Figure 2b: Layout of spent fuel pool and transfer system for boiling water reactors (Source:
NUREG-1275, 1997).

tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards

THE HAZARD FROM CESIUM-137 RELEASES
Although a number of isotopes are of concern, we focus here on the fission
product 137 Cs. It has a 30-year half-life, is relatively volatile and, along with
its short-lived decay product, barium-137 (2.55 minute half-life), accounts forabout half of the fission-product activity in 10-year-old spent fuel.15 It is apotent land contaminant because 95% of its decays are to an excited state of
137
Ba, which de-excites by emitting a penetrating (0.66-MeV) gamma ray.16
The damage that can be done by a large release of fission products wasdemonstrated by the April 1986 Chernobyl accident. More than 100,000 residents from 187 settlements were permanently evacuated because of contamination by 137 Cs. Strict radiation-dose control measures were imposed in areas
contaminated to levels greater than 15 Ci/km2 (555 kBq/m2 ) of 137 Cs. The total area of this radiation-control zone is huge: 10,000 km2 , equal to half thearea of the State of New Jersey. During the following decade, the populationof this area declined by almost half because of migration to areas of lower
contamination.17
Inventories of Cs-137 in Spent-Fuel Storage Pools
The spent-fuel pools adjacent to most power reactors contain much larger inventories of 137 Cs than the 2 MegaCuries (MCi) that were released from the coreof Chernobyl 1000-Megawatt electric (MWe) unit #418 or the approximately
5 MCi in the core of a 1000-MWe light-water reactor. A typical 1000-MWe pressurized water reactor (PWR) core contains about 80 metric tons of uranium in
its fuel, while a typical U.S. spent fuel pool today contains about 400 tons ofspent fuel (see Figure 3). (In this article, wherever tons are referred to, metrictons are meant.) Furthermore, since the concentration of 137 Cs builds up almost
linearly with burnup, there is on average about twice as much in a ton of spent
fuel as in a ton of fuel in the reactor core.
For an average cumulative fission energy release of 40 Megawatt-days thermal per kg of uranium originally in the fuel (MWt-days/kgU) and an averagesubsequent decay time of 15 years, 400 tons of spent power-reactor fuel would
contain 35 megaCuries (MCi) of 137 Cs.19 If 10–100% of the 137 Cs in a spent-fuelpool,20 i.e., 3.5–35 MCi, were released by a spent-fuel fire to the atmosphere ina plume distributed vertically uniformly through the atmosphere’s lower “mixing layer” and dispersed downwind in a “wedge model” approximation under
median conditions (mixing layer thickness of 1 km, wedge opening angle of 6
degrees, wind speed of 5 m/sec, and deposition velocity of 1 cm/sec) then 37,000–
150,000 km2 would be contaminated above 15 Ci/km2 , 6,000–50,000 km2 would

7

Figure 3: Estimated 2003 spent fuel inventory at each U.S. spent-fuel pool, measured in metric tons of contained uranium. Height ofbar indicates total licensed capacity (1998, with some updates). Shading indicates estimated tonnage of spent fuel in pool as of2003. Dark shading indicates the estimated amount of fuel discharged from the reactors within the past 5 years. Canister indicatesthe presence of on-site dry storage. Pool indicates that reactor shares a pool with the reactor to the left (Source: authors25 ).
(Continued)

tj715-03
SGS.cls
April 21, 2003

8
13:42

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Figure 3: (Continued)

tj715-03

9

tj715-03

SGS.cls

10

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.
Table 1: Typical plume areas (km2 ).
Release>100 Ci/km2>1000 Ci/km2

Chernobyl (2 MCi, hot, multi-directional)
3.5 MCi (MACCS2)
3.5 MCi (wedge model)
35 MCi (MACCS2)
35 MCi (wedge model)

≈700
3,500
6,000
45,00050,000

200
180
2,500
6,000

be contaminated to greater than 100 Ci/km2 and 180–6000 km2 to a level ofgreater than 1000 Ci/km2 .21 Table 1 and Figure 4 show typical contaminatedareas, calculated using the MACCS2 Gaussian plume dispersion code used by
the NRC22 for fires with 40 MWt thermal power.23 This corresponds to fire
durations of half an hour and 5 hours, respectively for fires that burn 10 or 100
percent of 400 tons of spent fuel.24 Similar results were obtained for slowerburning fires with powers of 5 MWt.
It will be seen in Table 1 that, for the 3.5 MCi release, the area calculated
as contaminated above 100 Ci/km2 are 5–9 times larger than the area contaminated to this level by the 2 MCi release from the Chernobyl accident. The
reasons are that, at Chernobyl: 1) much of the Cs-137 was lifted to heights of
up to 2.5 km by the initial explosion and the subsequent hot fire and therefore
carried far downwind;26 and 2) the release extended over 10 days during which
the wind blew in virtually all directions. As a result, more than 90 percent of the137
Cs from Chernobyl was dispersed into areas that were contaminated to lessthan 40 Ci/km2 .27 In contrast, in the wedge-model calculations for the 3.5 MCi
release, about 50 percent of the 137 Cs is deposited in areas contaminated togreater than this level.
The projected whole-body dose from external radiation from 137 Cs to someone living for 10 years in an area contaminated to 100 or 1000 Ci/km2 would
be 10–20 or 100–200 rem, with an associated additional risk of cancer death ofabout 1 or 10 percent respectively.28 A 1 or 10 percent added risk would increase
an average person’s lifetime cancer death risk from about 20 percent to 21 or
30 percent.
A 1997 study done for the NRC estimated the median consequences of aspent-fuel fire at a pressurized water reactor (PWR) that released 8–80 MCi of137
Cs. The consequences included: 54,000–143,000 extra cancer deaths, 2000–
7000 km2 of agricultural land condemned, and economic costs due to evacuationof $117–566 billion.29 This is consistent with our own calculations using the
MACCS2 code. It is obvious that all practical measures must be taken to preventthe occurrence of such an event.

tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards

(a)

(b)
Figure 4: Typical areas contaminated above 100 (shaded) and 1000 (black) Ci/km2 forrelease of (a) 3.5 MCi and (b) 35 MCi of 137 Cs. The added chance of cancer death for a
person living within the shaded area for 10 years is estimated very roughly as between 1
and 10 percent. For someone living within the black area, the added risk would be greaterthan 10 percent (i.e. the “normal” 20% lifetime cancer death risk would be increased toover 30 percent.) (Source: authors).

SCENARIOS FOR A LOSS OF SPENT-FUEL-POOL WATER
The cooling water in a spent-fuel pool could be lost in a number of ways, throughaccidents or malicious acts. Detailed discussions of sensitive information are notnecessary for our purposes. Below, we provide some perspective for the following
generic cases: boil-off; drainage into other volumes through the opening of somecombination of the valves, gates and pipes that hold the water in the pool; a fire
resulting from the crash of a large aircraft; and puncture by an aircraft turbine
shaft or a shaped charge.

11

tj715-03

SGS.cls

12

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.

Figure 5: Decay heat as a function of time from 0.01 years (about 4 days) to 100 years forspent-fuel burnups of 33, 43, 53 and 63 MWd/kgU. The lowest burnup was typical for the
1970s. Current burnups are around 50 MWd/kgU (Source: authors38 ).

Boil Off
Keeping spent fuel cool is less demanding than keeping the core in an operating
reactor cool. Five minutes after shutdown, nuclear fuel is still releasing 800 kilowatts of radioactive heat per metric ton of uranium (kWt/tU)30 . However, after
several days, the decay heat is down to 100 kWt/tU and after 5 years the levelis down to 2–3 kWt/tU (see Figure 5).
In case of a loss of cooling, the time it would take for a spent-fuel pool
to boil down to near the top of the spent fuel would be more than 10 days if
the most recent spent-fuel discharge had been a year before. If the entire coreof a reactor had been unloaded into the spent fuel pool only a few days after
shutdown, the time could be as short as a day.31 Early transfer of spent fuel into

tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards

storage pools has become common as reactor operators have reduced shutdown
periods. Operators often transfer the entire core to the pool in order to expedite
refueling or to facilitate inspection of the internals of the reactor pressure vessel
and identification and replacement of fuel rods leaking fission products.32
Even a day would allow considerable time to provide emergency cooling if
operators were not prevented from doing so by a major accident or terrorist act
such as an attack on the associated reactor that released a large quantity ofradioactivity. In this article, we do not discuss scenarios in which spent-fuel fires
compound the consequences of radioactive releases from reactors. We therefore
focus on the possibility of an accident or terrorist act that could rapidly draina pool to a level below the top of the fuel.
DrainageAll spent-fuel pools are connected via fuel-transfer canals or tubes to the cavity
holding the reactor pressure vessel. All can be partially drained through failureof interconnected piping systems, moveable gates, or seals designed to close
the space between the pressure vessel and its surrounding reactor cavity.33
A 1997 NRC report described two incidents of accidental partial drainage asfollows:34
Two loss of SFP [spent fuel pool] coolant inventory events occurred inwhich SFP level decrease exceeded 5 feet [1.5 m]. These events were terminated by operator action when approximately 20 feet [6 m] of coolant remained above the stored fuel. Without operator actions, the inventory loss could
have continued until the SFP level had dropped to near the top of the stored
fuel resulting in radiation fields that would have prevented access to the SFP
area.

Once the pool water level is below the top of the fuel, the gamma radiation level would climb to 10,000 rems/hr at the edge of the pool and 100’s ofrems/hr in regions of the spent-fuel building out of direct sight of the fuel because of scattering of the gamma rays by air and the building structure (seeFigure 6).35 At the lower radiation level, lethal doses would be incurred within
about an hour.36 Given such dose rates, the NRC staff assumed that further
ad hoc interventions would not be possible.37
Fire
A crash into the spent fuel pool by a large aircraft raises concerns of bothpuncture (see below) and fire. With regard to fire, researchers at the Sandia
National Laboratory, using water to simulate kerosene, crashed loaded airplane13

tj715-03

SGS.cls

14

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.

Figure 6: Calculated radiation levels from a drained spent-fuel pool one meter above thelevel of the floor of a simplified cylindrically-symmetric spent-fuel-pool building. Even out of
direct sight of the spent fuel, the radiation dose rates from gamma rays scattered by theair, roof and walls are over a hundred rems/hr.

wings into runways. They concluded that at speeds above 60 m/s (135 mph),
approximately
50% of the liquid is so finely atomized that it evaporates before reaching the
ground. If this were fuel, a fireball would certainly have been the result, and in
the high-temperature environment of the fireball a substantially larger fractionof the mass would have evaporated.39

The blast that would result from such a fuel-air explosion might not destroy thepool but could easily collapse the building above, making access difficult anddropping debris into the pool. A potentially destructive fuel-air deflagration
could also occur in spaces below some pools. Any remaining kerosene would be
expected to pool and burn at a rate of about 0.6 cm/minute if there is a good air
supply.40
The burning of 30 cubic meters of kerosene—about one third as much as
can be carried by the type of aircraft which struck the World Trade Centeron September 11, 200141 —would release about 1012 joules of heat—enoughto evaporate 500 tons of water. However, under most circumstances, only arelatively small fraction of the heat would go into the pool.

tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards

Puncture by an Airplane Engine Turbine Shaft, Dropped Cask
or Shaped Charge
As Figure 2 suggests, many spent-fuel pools are located above ground level orabove empty cavities. Such pools could drain completely if their bottoms werepunctured or partially if their sides were punctured.
Concerns that the turbine shaft of a crashing high-speed fighter jet or an
act of war might penetrate the wall of a spent-fuel storage pool and causea loss of coolant led Germany in the 1970s to require that such pools be sited
with their associated reactors inside thick-walled containment buildings. When
Germany decided to establish large away-from-reactor spent-fuel storage
facilities, it rejected large spent-fuel storage pools and decided instead on dry
storage in thick-walled cast-iron casks cooled on the outside by convectively
circulating air. The casks are stored inside reinforced-concrete buildings thatprovide some protection from missiles.42
Today, the turbine shafts of larger, slower-moving passenger and freightaircraft are also of concern. After the September 11, 2001 attacks against theWorld Trade Center, the Swiss nuclear regulatory authority stated that
From the construction engineering aspect, nuclear power plants (worldwide)
are not protected against the effects of warlike acts or terrorist attacks from theair. . . . one cannot rule out the possibility that fuel elements in the fuel pool or the
primary cooling system would be damaged and this would result in a release ofradioactive substances [emphasis in original]43

The NRC staff has decided that it is prudent to assume that a turbine shaftof a large aircraft engine could penetrate and drain a spent-fuel-storage pool.44
Based on calculations using phenomenological formulae derived from experiments with projectiles incident on reinforced concrete, penetration cannot be
ruled out for a high-speed crash but seems unlikely for a low-speed crash.45
This is consistent with the results of a highly-constrained analysis recently publicized by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).46 The analysis itself
has not been made available for independent peer review “because of security
considerations.” According to the NEI press release, however, it concluded thatthe engine of an aircraft traveling at the low speed of the aircraft that struck thePentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 (approximately 350 miles/hr or 156 m/s) would not
penetrate the wall of a spent-fuel-storage pool. Crashes at higher speed suchas that against the World Trade Center South Tower (590 miles/hr or 260 m/s),
which had about three times greater kinetic energy, were ruled out because the“probability of the aircraft striking a specific point on a structure—particularly
one of the small size of a nuclear plant—is significantly less as speed increases.”15

tj715-03

SGS.cls

16

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.

The NEI press release included an illustration showing a huge World Trade
Center tower (63 meters wide and 400 meters tall) in the foreground and a tiny
spent-fuel pool (24 meters wide and 12 meters high) in the distance. Apparently no analysis was undertaken as to the possibility of a crash destroying the
supports under or overturning a spent-fuel pool. A less constrained analysis
should be carried out under U.S. Government auspices.
A terrorist attack with a shaped-charge anti-tank missile could also puncture a pool—as could a dropped spent-fuel cask.47

COOLING PROCESSES IN A PARTIALLY OR FULLY-DRAINEDSPENT-FUEL POOL
“Dense packing”
U.S. storage pools—like those in Europe and Japan—were originally sizedon the assumption that the spent fuel would be stored on site for only a few
years until it was cool enough to transport to a reprocessing plant where the fuelwould be dissolved and plutonium and uranium recovered for recycle. In 1974,
however, India tested a nuclear explosive made with plutonium recovered for“peaceful” purposes. The Carter Administration responded in 1977 by halting
the licensing of an almost completed U.S. reprocessing plant. The rationale wasthat U.S. reprocessing might legitimize the acquisition of separated plutonium
by additional countries interested in developing a nuclear-weapons option. In
the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, therefore, the U.S. Government committed to provide an alternative destination for the spent fuel accumulating inreactor pools by building a deep-underground repository. According to the Act,
acceptance of spent fuel at such a repository was supposed to begin by 1998. Asof this writing, the US Department of Energy (DoE) projects that it can open
the Yucca Mountain repository in 201048 but the US General Accounting Officehas identified several factors, including budget limitations, that could delay the
opening to 2015 or later.49
U.S. nuclear-power plant operators have dealt with the lack of an offsite destination for their accumulating spent fuel by packing as many fuelassemblies as possible into their storage pools and then, when the pools are
full, acquiring dry storage casks for the excess. The original design density ofspent fuel in the pools associated with PWRs had the fuel assemblies spaced out
in a loose square array. The standard spacing for new dense-pack racks today is
23 cm—barely above the 21.4 cm spacing in reactor cores.50 This “dense-packed”
fuel is kept sub-critical by enclosing each fuel assembly in a metal box whose
walls contain neutron-absorbing boron51 (see Figure 752 ).

tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards

Figure 7: Open and dense-pack PWR spent-fuel racks (Sources: Left: NUREG/CR-0649,
SAND77-1371, 1979; right: authors).

These boron-containing partitions would block the horizontal circulation ofcooling air if the pool water were lost, greatly reducing the benefits of mixing
recently-discharged with older, cooler fuel. During a partial uncovering of thefuel, the openings at the bottoms of the spent-fuel racks would be covered inwater, completely blocking air from circulating up through the fuel assemblies.
The portions above the water would be cooled primarily by steam produced by
the decay heat in the below-surface portions of the fuel rods in the assemblies
and by blackbody radiation.53
In the absence of any cooling, a freshly-discharged core generating decay
heat at a rate of 100 kWt/tU would heat up adiabatically within an hour toabout 600◦ C, where the zircaloy cladding would be expected to rupture under
the internal pressure from helium and fission product gases,54 and then to
about 900◦ C where the cladding would begin to burn in air.55 It will be seenthat the cooling mechanisms in a drained dense-packed spent-fuel pool would
be so feeble that they would only slightly reduce the heatup rate of such hot fuel.
In 2001, the NRC staff summarized the conclusions of its most recent analysis of the potential consequences of a loss-of-coolant accident in a spent fuelpool as follows:[I]t was not feasible, without numerous constraints, to establish a genericdecay heat level (and therefore a decay time) beyond which a zirconium fire is17

tj715-03

SGS.cls

18

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.
physically impossible. Heat removal is very sensitive to . . . factors such as fuelassembly geometry and SFP [spent fuel pool] rack configuration . . . [which] areplant specific and . . . subject to unpredictable changes after an earthquake or cask
drop that drains the pool. Therefore, since a non-negligible decay heat source lasts
many years and since configurations ensuring sufficient air flow for cooling cannot
be assured, the possibility of reaching the zirconium ignition temperature cannot
be precluded on a generic basis.56

We have done a series of “back-of-the-envelope” calculations to try to understand the computer-model calculations on which this conclusion is based.
We have considered thermal conduction, infrared radiation, steam cooling, andconvective air cooling.
Thermal Conduction
Conduction through the length of uncovered fuel could not keep it below failure
temperature until the fuel had cooled for decades.57
Infrared Radiation
Infrared radiation would bring the exposed tops of the fuel assemblies into thermal equilibrium at a temperature of T0 = [PM/(Aσ )]1/4 ◦ K, where P is the power(Watts) of decay heat generated per metric ton of uranium, M is the weight of
the uranium in the fuel assembly (0.47 tons), A = 500 cm2 is the cross-sectional
area of the dense-pack box containing the fuel assembly, and σ (= 5.67 × 10−12
T4K Watts/cm2 ) is the Stefan-Boltzman constant. (We assume that the top of thefuel assembly radiates as a black body, i.e., maximally.) For P = 1 kW or 10 kW,
T0 is respectively 370 or 860◦ C.
With radiative cooling only, however, the temperatures in the depths of thefuel assemblies would be much hotter, because most of the radiation from theinterior of the fuel would be reabsorbed and reradiated by other fuel rods manytimes before it reached the top end of the fuel assembly. Even for P = 1 kW/tU(roughly 30-year-old fuel) the temperature at the bottom of the fuel assembly
would be about 2000◦ C.58 Therefore, while radiation would be effective in cooling the exposed surfaces of older fuel assemblies, it would not be effective incooling their interiors.
Steam Cooling
Steam cooling could be effective as long as the water level covers more thanabout the bottom quarter of the spent fuel. Below that level, the rate of steam
generation by the fuel will depend increasingly on the rate of heat transfer

tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards

from the spent fuel to the water via blackbody radiation. The rate at whichheat is transferred directly to the water will decline as the water level sinks
and the temperature of the fuel above will climb. When the water is at thebottom of the fuel assembly, it appears doubtful that this mechanism could
keep the peak temperature below 1200◦ C for fuel less than a hundred years
post discharge.59 Since even steels designed for high-temperature strength lose
virtually all their strength by 1000◦ C and zircaloy loses its strength by 1200◦ C,
the tops of the racks could be expected to begin to slump by the time this waterlevel is reached.60

Convective Air Cooling
After a complete loss of coolant, when air could gain access to the bottom of thefuel assemblies, convective air cooling would depend upon the velocity of the air
through the fuel assemblies. The heat capacity of air is about 1000 joules/kg-◦ C,
its sea-level density at a 100◦ C (373◦ K) entrance temperature into the bottomof a fuel assembly is about 0.9 kg/m3 , the cross-section of the portion of a densepack box that is not obstructed by fuel rods would be about 0.032 m2 ,61 and eachfuel assembly contains about 0.47 tons of uranium. The vertical flow velocity of
air at the bottom of the assembly for an air temperature rise to 900◦ C (1173◦ K)
then would be 0.023 m/sec per kW/tU. Because the density of the air varies
inversely with its absolute temperature, this velocity would increase by a factorof (1173/373) ≈ 3 at the top of the fuel assembly.
The pressure accelerating the air to this velocity would come from the imbalance in density—and therefore weight—of the cool air in the space between
the fuel racks and the pool wall (the “down-comer”) and the warming air in thefuel assemblies. If we assume that the density of the air in the down-comer is
1 kg/m3 and that it has an average density of 0.5 kg/m3 in the fuel assemblies,
then the weight difference creates a driving pressure difference. Neglecting
friction losses, this pressure difference would produce a velocity for the air entering the bottom of the fuel assembly of about 2.7 m/s, sufficient to remove heatat a rate of 120 kW/tU. Adding friction losses limits the air velocity to about
0.34 m/s, however, which could not keep PWR fuel below a temperature of 900◦ C
for a decay heat level greater than about 15 kW/tU—corresponding to about ayear’s cooling.62 Adding in conductive and radiative cooling would not change
this result significantly.
This is consistent with results obtained by more exact numerical calculations that take into account friction losses in the down-comer and the heatingof the air in the building above the spent-fuel pool.63 The 1979 Sandia study
obtained similar results. It also found that, in contrast to the situation with19

tj715-03

SGS.cls

20

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.

dense-pack storage, with open-frame storage and a spacing between fuel assemblies of 53 cm (i.e., a density approximately one fifth that of dense-packed
fuels), convective air cooling in a well-ventilated spent-fuel storage building (seebelow) could maintain spent fuel placed into the spent-fuel pool safely below its
cladding failure temperature as soon as 5 days after reactor shutdown.64 These
important conclusions should be confirmed experimentally with, for example,
electrically heated fuel rods.65

Spread of Fires from Hot to Colder Fuel
The above discussion has focused on the likelihood that recently-discharged
dense-packed fuel could heat up to ignition temperature in either a partiallyor fully drained pool. It is more difficult to discuss quantitatively the spread ofsuch a fire to adjacent cells holding cooler fuel that would not ignite on its own.
A 1987 Brookhaven report attempted to model the phenomena involved andconcluded that “under some conditions, propagation is predicted to occur for
spent fuel that has been stored as long as 2 years.”66 The conditions giving thisresult were dense-packing with 5 inch [13 cm] diameter orifices at the bottomof the cells—i.e., typical current U.S. storage arrangements.
The report notes, however, that its model
does not address the question of Zircaloy oxidation propagation after cladmelting and relocation [when] a large fraction of the fuel rods would be expected
to fall to the bottom of the pool, the debris bed will remain hot and will tend to heatadjacent assemblies from below [which] appears to be an additional mechanism
for oxidation propagation.

The report therefore concludes that the consequences of two limiting cases
should be considered in estimating the consequences of spent-fuel pool fires:
1) only recently discharged fuel burns, and 2) all the fuel in the pool burns.67
This is what we have done above. We would add, however, that any blockage of
air flow in the cooler channels of a dense-packed pool by debris, residual water,or sagging of the box structure would facilitate the propagation of a spent-fuelfire.68

MAKING SPENT-FUEL POOLS, THEIR OPERATION,
AND THEIR REGULATION SAFER
A variety of possibilities can be identified for reducing the risk posed by spentfuel pools. Some were considered in reports prepared for the NRC prior to thetj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards

Sept. 11, 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center and rejected because theestimated probability of an accidental loss of coolant was so low (about 2 chances
in a million per reactor year) that protecting against it was not seen to be costeffective.69
Now it is necessary to take into account the potentially higher probability
that a terrorist attack could cause a loss of coolant. Since the probabilitiesof specific acts of malevolence cannot be estimated in advance, the NRC andCongress will have to make a judgment of the probability that should be used incost-benefit analyses. The most costly measures we propose would be justified
using the NRC’s cost-benefit approach if the probability of an accident or attack
on a U.S. spent-fuel pool resulting in a complete release of its 137 Cs inventory to
the atmosphere were judged to be 0.7 percent in a 30-year period. This is at theupper end of the range of probabilities estimated by the NRC staff for spent-fuelfires caused by accidents alone. For a release of one tenth of the 137 Cs inventory,
the break-even probability would rise to about 5 percent in 30 years.70
Below, we discuss more specifically initiatives to:¨

Reduce the probability of an accidental loss of coolant from a spent-fuel
pool,

¨

Make the pools more resistant to attack,¨

Provide emergency cooling,¨

Reduce the likelihood of fire should a loss of coolant occur, and¨Reduce the inventory of spent fuel in the pools.

Included are three recommendations made in the 1979 Sandia study on theconsequences of possible loss-of-coolant accidents at spent-fuel storage pools.71
Unfortunately, all of these approaches offer only partial solutions to the problemof spent-fuel-pool safety. That problem will remain as long as nuclear power
plants operate. However, the probability of a spent-fuel fire can be significantly
reduced, as can its worst-case consequences. Some options will involve risk
tradeoffs, and will therefore require further analysis before decisions are madeon their implementation.
We discuss the specific changes below under three headings: regulatory,
operational, and design.

Regulatory
NRC regulations do not currently require either qualified or redundant safetysystems at spent-fuel pools or emergency water makeup capabilities.72 The

21

tj715-03

SGS.cls

22

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.

NRC should require reactor owners to remedy this situation and demonstrate the capability to operate and repair spent-fuel pools and their supporting equipment under accident conditions or after an attack. This capability would contribute to defense in depth for nuclear power plants and spent
fuel.73

Operational
Minimize the Movement of Spent-Fuel Casks Over Spent-Fuel Pools
The NRC staff study, Spent Fuel Accident Risk, concludes that “spent fuel casks
are heavy enough to catastrophically damage the pool if dropped.” The study
cites industry estimates that casks are typically moved “near or over the SFP(spent fuel pool) for between 5 and 25 percent of the total path.” It was concluded that this was not a serious concern, however, because industry compliance with NRC guidance would result in the probability of a drop being reduced
to less than 10−5 per reactor-year.74 Nevertheless, we recommend considerationof whether the movements of spent-fuel casks over pools can be reduced. We
also acknowledge that reducing a pool’s inventory of fuel, as recommended below, will increase the number of cask movements in the near term—although
all the fuel will eventually have to be removed from the pools in any case.
The resulting risk increase should be minimized as part of the implementation
plan.

Minimize Occasions When the Entire Core is Moved to the Pool During
Refueling Outages
Refueling outages occur every 12 to 18 months and typically last a month or
so. Pool dry-out times decrease dramatically when full cores are placed into
spent-fuel-storage pools only a few days after reactor shutdown. Only a third
to a quarter of the fuel in the core is actually “spent.” The remainder is moved
back into the core at new positions appropriate for its reduced fissile content.
It is not necessary to remove the entire core to the spent fuel pool to replace thefuel assemblies in their new locations.75 Even when it is necessary to inspect
the interior of the pressure vessel or to test the fuel for leakage, removal of partof the fuel should be adequate in most cases. The only regulatory requirement
for removal of the entire core is on those infrequent occasions when work is
being done that has the potential for draining the reactor pressure vessel. This
would be the case, for example, when work is being done on a pipe between thetj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards

pressure vessel and the first isolation valve on that pipe—or on the isolation
valve itself.76

DesignGo to Open-Frame Storage
As already noted, the Sandia study found that, for pools with open-frame storage in well-ventilated storage buildings (see below), spent fuel in a drained
storage pool will not overheat if it is cooled at least 5 days before being transferred to the pool. Furthermore, for partial drainage, which blocks air flow frombelow, open-frame storage allows convective cooling of the fuel assemblies fromthe sides above the water surface.
The simplest way to make room for open-frame storage at existing reactors
is to transfer all spent fuel from wet to dry storage within five years of discharge
from the reactor. Consequently, our proposal for open-frame storage is tied toproposals for dry storage, as discussed below.
The open-frame storage considered in the Sandia study could store, however, only 20 percent as much fuel as a modern dense-pack configuration. Thus,a pool that could hold 500 tons of dense-packed spent fuel from a 1000-MWe
unit could accommodate in open racks the approximately 100 tons of spent
fuel that would be discharged in five years from that reactor.77 However, about
twice as large a pool would be required to provide enough space in addition toaccommodate the full reactor core in open-frame storage. If this much space
were not available, occasions in which a full-core discharge is required would
remain dangerous—although less frequent, if the recommendation to minimize
full-core offloads is adopted.
Alternative approaches to a lack of sufficient space for open-rack storage
would be to move spent fuel out of the pool earlier than five years after discharge
or to adopt racking densities intermediate between dense-pack and the Sandia
open rack arrangement. Two interesting intermediate densities that should
be analyzed are: 1) an arrangement where one fifth of the fuel assemblies are
removed in a pattern in which each of the remaining fuel assemblies has one
side next to an empty space; 2) an arrangement where alternate rows of fuelassemblies are removed from the rack. These geometries would have to include
perforations in the walls to allow air circulation in situations where enoughwater remained in the pool to block the openings at the bottoms of the boxes,
or removal of some partitions entirely.
One problem with open-rack storage is that it creates a potential for a criticality accident for fresh or partially burned fuel if the fuel racks are crushed.

23

tj715-03

SGS.cls

24

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.

Figure 8: Neutron multiplication as a function of array pitch in an infinite square array of
4.4% enriched fuel rods with a design burnup of 53 MWd/kgU for 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100%
irradiation (Source: authors).

Figure 8 shows the value of the neutron multiplication factor keff in an infinite
square array of 4.4% enriched fuel at various burnups as a function of the spacing between the rod centers (the array “pitch”) in a pool of unborated water.78 It
will be seen that, for burnups of less than 50 percent, the open array is criticalat a pitch of 2.6 cm and that the neutron multiplication factor increases as thepitch decreases to about 1.6 cm.
This situation is most problematical for low-burnup fuel. One way to remedy
the situation for low-burnup fuel would be to put in neutron-absorbing plates
between rows of fuel assemblies.79 This would still allow free convection of air
through the rows. Other configurations of neutron-absorbing material could
also be consistent with allowing free convection. Suppression of criticality
could also be achieved by adding a soluble compound of neutron-absorbing
boron to the pool water.80 Finally, some high-density rack spaces could be provided for low-burnup fuel. If fresh fuel is stored in pools, it could certainly
be put in dense-rack storage since fresh fuel does not generate significant
heat.
Provide for Emergency Ventilation of Spent-Fuel Buildings
The standard forced air exchange rate for a spent-fuel-storage building is two
air changes per hour.81 Consider a building with an air volume V and an air
exchange rate of n volumes of external air per hour. If the spent fuel generates
heat at a rate P, the air temperature rise will be 1T = 3600P/(nVρcp ) whereρ is the density of the air entering the building (about 1 kg/m3 ) and cp is thetj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards

heat capacity of the air per kg at constant pressure [(about 1000 joules/(kg-◦ C)].
Therefore, 1T ∼ 3.6P/(nV). Consider a case where the spent-fuel pool contains
80 tons of freshly-discharged fuel generating 100 kWt/tU of decay heat (i.e., P =8 MWt) and where V = 10,000 cubic meters (e.g., a building roughly 30 meterssquare and 10 meters tall). For this case, 1T ∼ 2900/n◦ C. To bring 1T down to100◦ C would require about 30 air exchanges per hour.
The Sandia report proposed that, in case of a loss-of-coolant accident, large
vents in the sides and roof of the building be opened to allow a high rate ofconvective air exchange. The required area of the openings was calculated
by equating the outside-inside air pressure difference at the floor of a building H meters high due to the difference in air densities outside and inside:
1p = gH(ρo − ρi ) with the sum of the throttling pressure losses at the openings: 1pth = 0.5ρo (vi /CD )2 + 0.5ρi (vo /CD )2 . Here vi and vo are respectively theaverage velocities of the incoming and exiting air and the “discharge coefficient,”
CD ∼ 0.6, reflects the reduction of the air velocity due to turbulence caused by
the edges of the openings. Taking into account the fact that air density varies
inversely with absolute temperature, the minimum area of the openings can becalculated as82
A = {P/[CD cp ρo (2gH)1/2 ]}{Ti (To + Ti )/[To (1T)3 ]}1/2
For H = 10 m, Ti = 300◦ K and 1T = 100◦ K, this equation becomes A = 3.6P m2
if P is measured in megawatts. Thus, if P = 8 MWt, A would have to be 30 m2 ,e.g. an opening 10 meters long and 3 meters high.
Of course, such a system would not prevent a fire in a dense-packed poolbecause of the poor air circulation in the spent-fuel racks. It is a complement
to open-rack storage, not a substitute.
The venting system design proposed in the Sandia report is attractive because it is passive. However, it might be difficult to retrofit into existing buildings, the door-opening system might be incapacitated, and it would not work if
the building collapsed as a result of an accident or terrorist act. Furthermore, if
a fire did start, the availability of ventilation air could feed the fire. Therefore,high-capacity diesel-powered blowers should be considered as an alternative orcomplement to a passive ventilation system.

Install Emergency Water Sprays
The Sandia report also proposed that a sprinkler system be installed.83 For
80 tons of spent fuel generating 100 kWt/MTU, the amount of water required if itwere all evaporated would be about 3 liters per second. Such a flow could easily25

tj715-03

SGS.cls

26

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.

be managed in a sprinkler system with modest-sized pipes.84 The sprinkler
system should be designed with an assured supply of water and to be robust
and protected from falling debris. It should also be remotely operated, since theradiation level from uncovered fuel would make access to and work in a spentfuel building difficult to impossible—especially if the building were damaged.
The hottest fuel should be stored in areas where spray would be the heaviest,
even if the building collapses on top of the pool (e.g., along the sides of thepool). The spray would need to reach all of the spent fuel in the pool, however—
especially in scenarios where the spray water accumulated at the bottom of thepool and blocked air flow into the dense-pack racks.
Another circumstance in which the spray could aggravate the situation
would be if the spent-fuel racks were crushed or covered with debris, blocking
the flow of air. In such a case, steam generated from water dripping into thesuperheated fuel could react with the zirconium instead. The circumstances
under which sprays should be used would require detailed scenario analysis.

Make Preparations for Emergency Repairs of HolesA small hole, such as might be caused by the penetration of a turbine shaft or
an armor-piercing warhead, might be patched. For a hole in the side, a flexible
sheet might be dropped down the inside of the pool.85 However, in the turbineshaft case, the space might be blocked if the projectile was protruding fromthe wall into the spent-fuel rack. Or the racks might be damaged enough toclose the gap between them and the side of the pool. Also, if the top of the fuelwere already exposed, the radiation levels in the pool area would be too highfor anything other than pre-emplaced, remotely controlled operations.
Patching from the outside would be working against the pressure of thewater remaining in the pool (0.1 atmosphere or 1 kg/cm2 per meter of depth
above the hole). However, there could be better access and the pool wall would
provide shielding—especially if the hole were small. Techniques that have beendeveloped to seal holes in underground tunnels might be useful.86

Armor Exposed Outside Walls and Bottoms Against Projectiles
The water and fuel in the pool provide an effective shield against penetrationof the pool wall and floor from the inside. It should be possible to prevent penetration by shaped charges from the outside with a stand-off wall about 3 meters
away that would cause the jet of liquid metal formed by the shaped charge toexpand and become much less penetrating before it struck the pool wall. In thecase of the turbine shaft, Pennington’s analysis for dry casks suggests that ittj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards

also might be possible to absorb the shaft’s energy with a thick sheet of steel
that is supported in a way that allows it to stretch elastically and absorb the
projectile’s kinetic energy (see below).

REDUCING THE INVENTORY OF SPENT-FUEL POOLS
Our central proposal is to move spent fuel into dry storage casks after it hascooled for 5 years.87 In addition to allowing for a return to open-frame storage,such a transfer would reduce the typical 137 Cs inventory in a pool by approximately a factor of four,88 thereby reducing the worst-case release from a poolby a comparable factor. Casks are already a growing part of at-reactor storage capacity. Out of the 103 operating power reactors in the U.S., 33 alreadyhave dry cask storage and 21 are in the process of obtaining dry storage.89 On
average about 35 casks would be needed to hold the 5-year or more aged spent
fuel in a spent fuel pool filled to capacity.90
As already noted, to a certain extent this proposal runs counter to the earlier
proposal to mimimize the movement of spent fuel casks over pools. The risk ofdropped casks should be considered in deciding on which types of dry storagetransfer casks are utilized.

SAFETY OF DRY-CASK STORAGE
Shifting pools back toward open-rack storage would require moving much of
the spent fuel currently in pools into dry storage casks. With currently licensed
casks, this could be done by the time the fuel has cooled 5 years.
In principle, the transfer of the spent fuel to dry storage could take placeearlier. Spent fuel cooled for 2.5 years has about twice the decay heat per ton
as spent fuel 5 years after discharge (see figure 5). Such spent fuel might be
stored next to the walls of storage casks with older, cooler spent fuel stored in
the interior.
Casks are not vulnerable to loss of coolant because they are cooled by natural convection that is driven by the decay heat of the spent fuel itself. Thus
dry-storage casks differ from reactors and existing spent-fuel pools in that their
cooling is completely passive. To obtain a release of radioactive material, thewall of the fuel container must be penetrated from the outside, or the container
must be heated by an external fire to such an extent that the containment
envelope fails. However, many dry-storage modules must fail or be attacked
simultaneously to produce the very large releases that are possible today atspent-fuel pools. Nevertheless, since the total 137 Cs inventory on-site does not

27

tj715-03

SGS.cls

28

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.

change under our proposal, it is important to examine the safety of dry-cask
storage as we envisage it being used.
There are two basic types of dry storage cask currently licensed in the U.S.
(see Figure 9):91
1. Casks whose walls are thick enough to provide radiation protection; and2. Thin-walled canisters designed to be slid into a concrete storage overpack that provides the radiation shielding with space between the cask
and overpack for convective circulation of air. (Transfer overpacks andtransport overpacks are used for onsite movement and offsite shipping,respectively.)

Figure 9: (a) Thick-walled cask103 and (b) Cask with overpack.104 (Sources: GNB andNAC).

tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards

Among the possible threats to such casks are: shaped-charge missiles, aircraft turbine spindles, and fire.

Shaped-Charge Missile
Dry storage casks in the U.S. are stored on concrete pads in the open. Missiles
tipped with shaped charges designed to penetrate tank armor could penetratesuch an unprotected storage cask and cause some damage to the fuel within.
Experiments on CASTOR-type spent fuel casks of 1/3 length and containing a
3 × 3 array of assemblies were carried out in 1992 at a French army test sitefor Germany’s Ministry of the Environment and Nuclear Safety (BMU). The
simulated fuel was made of unirradiated depleted uranium pressurized to
40 atmospheres to simulate the pressure buildup from fission product gases inspent fuel.
The particulate matter released through the hole was collected and analyzed for size distribution. When the initial pressure within the cask was
atmospheric, about 3.6 grams of particles with diameters less than 100 microns were released in a puff from the hole. In the analysis of radiological consequences, it was assumed that, because of its volatility, 137 Cs equivalent to thatin 50 grams of spent fuel with a burnup of 48.5 MWd/tU would be released.92
Another analysis assumed a 137 Cs release 1000 times larger.93 A still larger
release could occur if a cask were attacked in such a way as to initiate andsustain combustion of the zirconium cladding of the fuel.
It has been found possible to plug the relatively small hole made by a shaped
charge in a thick-walled iron cask with a piece of lead before much radioactivity
could be released.94 Plugging the hole would be considerably more difficult in
the case of a thin-walled cask surrounded by a concrete overpack.
In each case, unless the fuel-in a significant fraction of the casks were
ignited, the release would be small in comparison to the potential releaseresulting from a spent-fuel-pool fire. Nevertheless, German authorities requirecasks to be stored inside a shielding building. The building walls could be penetrated by a shaped charge but the liquid metal would spread in the space
between the wall and the nearest cask and therefore be relatively harmless.
U.S. dry-cask storage areas are not currently so protected but the casks could
be protected with an overpack95 and/or a berm.

Turbine Spindle
The Castor cask has survived, without penetration impacts, from various angles by a simulated turbine spindle weighing about half a ton surrounded byadditional steel weighing about as much and traveling at almost sonic speed

29

tj715-03

SGS.cls

30

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.

(312 m/sec).96 Recently, NAC International carried out a computer simulationof the impact of a Boeing 747 turbine on its canister-in-overpack Universal
Multipurpose System at a speed of 220 m/sec and concluded it too would not be
penetrated. This conclusion should be verified experimentally.97

Fire
Theoretical studies of the resistance to fire of Castor V/19 (PWR) and V/52
(BWR) storage/transport casks were done for Austria’s Environmental Agency
for a number of German reactor sites because of concerns that the contamination from cask failure might extend into Austria. The scenario was a crash ofa large commercial airliner into a storage facility. It was assumed that 60 tonsof kerosene pooled around the storage casks and burned for 3 to 5 hours at atemperature of 1000◦ C. It was estimated that, because of the massive heat capacity of the thick cask walls, the seals of their bolted-down lids would begin to
fail only after 3 hours. It was also assumed that, by that time, the fuel cladding
would have failed. Finally, it was assumed that the contained 137 Cs would bein its most volatile possible (elemental) form. On this basis, it was estimatedthat about 0.04 MCi of 137 Cs would be released after a 5-hour, 1000◦ C fire in astorage facility with 135 casks containing a total of 170 MCi.98
Obviously, the release from even such a worst-case incident would be tiny
compared with the 100 to 1000 times higher releases from a spent-fuel pool fireconsidered above. However, a spent-fuel storage facility should be designed,among other requirements, to prevent the pooling of kerosene around thecasks.

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF
OLDER SPENT FUEL TO DRY-CASK STORAGE
As will be explained, given existing cask-production capacity, it would takeabout a decade to move most of the spent fuel currently in pools into dry-cask
storage. Virtually all of the storage would have to be at the reactor sites forsome decades until off-site disposal becomes available. The Yucca Mountainunderground repository will not open for at least a decade and current plans
have spent fuel being shipped to the repository at a rate of 3000 tons per year—
only about 1000 tons/yr more than the current rate of spent-fuel discharge from
U.S. reactors.99 If the opening of Yucca Mountain is delayed for many years,
approximately 2000 tons of spent fuel per year might be shipped to a proposedlarge centralized facility on the Goshute reservation west of Salt Lake City,
Utah—if it is licensed.100

tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards

For comparison, the inventory of spent fuel at U.S. reactor sites will be
more than 60,000 tons in 2010, of which about 45,000 tons will be in mostly
dense-packed pools.101 If all but the last 5 years of discharges are dry stored,
approximately 35,000 tons will have to be unloaded from the pools.102 Since
it would be imprudent to assume that off-site shipments to Yucca Mountain ora centralized interim spent-fuel storage facility could be relied on to solve theproblem of dense-packed spent-fuel pools anytime soon, we focus here on thelogistical and cost issues associated with increasing the amount of on-site dry
storage.

Cask Availability
Cask availability could be a rate-limiting step in moving older spent fuel frompools into dry storage at the reactor sites. Currently, US cask fabrication
capacity is approximately 200 casks per year—although the production rate
is about half that. Two hundred casks would have a capacity about equal to
the spent-fuel output of U.S. nuclear power plants of about 2000 tons per year.
However, according to two major U.S. manufacturers, they could increase their
combined production capacity within a few years to about 500 casks per year.105
To use the extra 300 casks per year to unload 35,000 tons of spent fuel out of
the storage pools would require about 10 years. This period could be reduced
somewhat if the unloading of high-density pools was perceived to be an important issue of homeland security. The United States has substantial industrial
capacity that could be allocated to cask production using existing, licensed designs. Casks made in Europe and Japan could be imported as well. However,other potentially rate-limiting factors would also have to be considered in any
estimate of how much the transfer period could be shortened.

Dry-Storage Costs
Storage cask capacity costs U.S. utilities from $90 to $210/kgU.106 Additional
capital investments for new on-site dry storage facilities would include NRC
licensing, storage pads, security systems, cask welding systems, transfer casks,
slings, tractor-trailers, and startup testing. These costs are estimated to range
from $9 to $18 million per site.107 However, at most sites, they will be incurred in any case, since even dense-packed pools are filling up. The capital
cost of moving 35,000 tons of spent fuel into dry casks would therefore be dominated by the cost of the casks and would range from about $3.5 to $7 billion($100–200/kgU). Per GWe of nuclear capacity, the cost would be $35–70 million.
The additional cost per kWh would be about 0.03–0.06 cents/kWh.108 This is0.4–0.8 percent of the average retail price of electricity in 2001.109 It is also31

tj715-03

SGS.cls

32

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.

equivalent to 30 to 60 percent of the federal charge for the ultimate dispositionof the spent fuel (see below).
The extra cost would be reduced significantly if the casks could be used
for transport and ultimate disposal as well. For multi-purpose canisters withstationary concrete overpacks, the extra cost would then be associated primarily with the overpack (about 20% of the total cost) and with the needto buy the canisters earlier than would have been the case had the spent
fuel stayed in dense-packed pools until it was transported to the geological repository. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has abandoned theidea of multi-purpose containers and currently plans to have spent fuel unpacked from transport canisters and then repacked in special canisters for
disposal.110
Costs would be increased by the construction of buildings, berms or otherstructures to surround the casks and provide additional buffering against
possible attack by anti-tank missiles or crashing aircraft. The building at
Gorleben, which is licensed to hold 420 casks containing about 4200 tons ofuranium in spent fuel, would cost an estimated $20–25 million to build in the
United States or about $6/kgU.111 Assuming conservatively that the building
cost scales with the square root of the capacity (i.e. according to the length of
its walls), it would cost about $12/kgU for a facility designed to store 100 casks
containing 1000 tons uranium in spent fuel—about the inventory of a typical 2-reactor site if our proposal was carried through by 2010.112 Berms for a
middle-sized storage area might cost about $1.5–3/kgU.113

Licensing Issues
The NRC currently licenses storage casks for 20 years. Some U.S. dry-cask storage facilities will reach the 20-year mark in a few years. The NRC is therefore
currently deciding what analysis will be required to provide a basis for license
extensions.
With reactor operators increasing fuel burnup, casks will also eventually
have to be licensed for the storage of high-burnup fuel. Current licenses allow
burnups of up to 45,000 MWd/MT. However, the CASTOR V/19 cask is alreadylicensed in Germany to store 19 high-burnup Biblis-type fuel assemblies, which
are slightly bigger and heavier than U.S. PWR fuel assemblies. The license
allows 15 five-year cooled fuel assemblies with burnups of 55 MWd/kgU plus
four with burnups of up to 65 MWd/kgU.114 U.S. storage casks have been tested
with fuels with burnups of 60 MWd/kgU.115
Finally, some reactor operators have expressed concern that the NRC does
not currently have sufficient manpower to accelerate the process of licensing

tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards

on-site dry storage. However, almost all sites will have to license dry storage inthe timeframe considered here in any case.

Who Will Pay?
Nuclear power operators can be expected to balk at the extra cost of moving
spent fuel out of pools to on-site dry storage. As a result of deregulation, many
operators are no longer able to pass such costs through to customers without
fear of being undersold by competing fossil-fueled power plants. Also, many
plants have been sold at a few percent of their original construction costs toowners who have established corporations to limit their liability to the value ofthe plants themselves.116 Therefore, to prevent extended delays in implementing dry storage, the federal government should consider offering to pay for extra
storage casks and any security upgrades that it might require for existing dry
storage facilities.
Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, the Department ofEnergy (DoE) was to enter into contracts with nuclear utilities to begin moving
spent fuel from nuclear power plants to a national deep underground repository
by 1998. In exchange, the utilities made payments to a national Nuclear Waste
Fund at the rate of 0.1 cents per net electrical kilowatt-hour generated by their
nuclear plants plus a one-time payment (which some utilities have not yet
fully paid) based on their nuclear generation prior to the law’s enactment. Asof May 31, 2002, this fund had a balance of $11.9 billion. Since 1995, $600–700
million have been deposited annually.117 The DoE spends about $600 million
annually on Yucca Mountain but, for the past several years, about two thirdsof this amount has been drawn from the National Defense Account of the U.S.
Treasury because the DoE had previously underpaid for the share of the facility
that will be occupied by high-level radioactive waste from its defense nuclear
programs.
There is therefore, in principle, a considerable amount of money that
could be made available in the Nuclear Waste Fund for dry storage. However,under some circumstances, all these funds may eventually be required for the
Yucca Mountain facility, whose total cost is projected to be $57.5 billion.118
Furthermore, the use of the fund for interim storage has been blocked byutility lawsuits.119 Most likely, therefore, the NWPA would have to be amended
to allow the federal government to assume title to dry-stored spent fuel andresponsibility for on-site storage.
An alternative approach would be to create an additional user fee similar
to that which flows into the NWPA fund. A fee of 0.1 cents per nuclear kWhwould generate an additional $750 million per year that could in 5 to 10 years

33tj715-03

SGS.cls

34

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.

pay the $3.7 to 7 billion cost estimated above to transfer 35,000 tons of spent
fuel into dry, hardened, on-site storage. Such a fee would, however, be opposedby the nuclear-plant operators.

SUMMARY
As summarized in Table 2, we have proposed a number of possible actions tocorrect for the obvious vulnerabilities of spent fuel pools and to reduce the worstcase release that can occur from such pools. These recommendations would
result in significant improvements over the current situation but they would
also have significant limitations.

Improvements¨

The obvious vulnerabilities of spent fuel pools would be addressed.

¨

The worst-case release from a typical spent fuel pool of 137 Cs—the isotopethat governs the extent of long-term land contamination—would be reduced
by a factor of about four. The residual inventory of 137 Cs in the spent fuelpool would be about twice that in a reactor core.

¨

Our recommendations are achievable with existing technologies at a costless than a percent of the price of nuclear-generated electricity.

Limitations¨

Considerable 137 Cs would remain in hot spent fuel in pool storage.

¨

Terrorists could still cause releases from the dry-cask modules to which theaged spent fuel would be transferred, although it is difficult to imagine how
they could release a large fraction of the total stored inventory, short ofdetonation of a nuclear weapon.

¨

Our analysis has been largely limited to accidents or terrorist acts thatwould partially or completely drain the pool while leaving the geometry of
the spent fuel racks and the building above intact. Spent fuel fires might
still arise in open-racked pools with air circulation blocked by a collapsedbuilding. Such situations require more analysis.

¨We have considered generic PWR pools. Additional issues may well arise
when specific PWR and BWR pools designs are analyzed.

tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards
Table 2: Summary of proposals.
Type

ActionRegulation Congress should decide theprobability of a terrorist-caused
spent-fuel pool fire to be usedby the NRC as a basis forregulatory cost-benefit analysis.
The NRC should require that
nuclear-power plant operators
have the capability to operate
and repair spent-fuel pools
under accident conditions orafter an attack.
Operation Minimize the movement of spent
fuel casks over spent-fuel pools.

DesignComment
The NRC currently has no basis for
deciding a limit on how muchshould be spent on
strengthening protections
against terrorist actions.
This would apply the NRC’s
defense in depth approach fornuclear power plants to spentfuel pools.

This has to be balanced with theproposal to remove older fuelfrom the pools.
Technically possible with some
Minimize occasions when theentire core is moved to the pool potential inconvenience toduring refueling outages.
licensees.
Transfer spent fuel to dry-cask
Transfer probably could bestorage 5 years after discharge
accomplished somewhat earlier.
from the power reactor.
Implementation will probably
require Congress to permit useof the Nuclear Waste Fund or toenact a retrospective fee onelectricity consumers—estimatedat about 0.03–0.06 cents perkilowatt hour generated fromthe spent fuel.
Return to open-frame
storage—perhaps withadditional measures of criticality
control.
Provide for emergency ventilation Analysis is required on how toof spent-fuel buildings.
control this air supply if a fire didstart.
Install emergency water sprays.
Water from the sprays could block
air circulation in adense-packed pool or feed afire under some circumstances.
Make preparation for emergency
repair of holes in pool walls andbottom.
Armor exposed outside walls and Feasibility may vary greatly forbottoms against projectiles.
different pool designs.

Finally, all of our proposals require further detailed analysis and somewould involve risk tradeoffs that also would have to be further analyzed. Ideally,
these analyses could be embedded in an open process in which both analysts andpolicy makers can be held accountable. This process would have to be designed

35

tj715-03

SGS.cls

36

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.

to balance the need for democratic debate with the need to keep from general
distribution information that might facilitate nuclear terrorism. We believethat our study shows that such a balance can be achieved.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank for their helpful comments and suggestions:
Steve Fetter, Richard Garwin, David Lochbaum, Helmut Hirsch, and a numberof anonymous reviewers.

NOTES AND REFERENCES
1.
“The results of the study indicate that the risk at SFPs [spent fuel pools] is low
and well within the Commission’s Quantitative Health Objectives. . . . The risk is low
because of the very low likelihood of a zirconium fire even though the consequences of azirconium fire could be serious.” [Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants (NRC, NUREG-1738, 2001) Executive Summary].
2.
Spent Fuel Heatup Following Loss of Water During Storage by Allan S. Benjaminet al. (Sandia National Laboratory, NUREG/CR-0649, SAND77-1371, 1979), fig. 14.
3.
“Policy issues related to safeguards, insurance, and emergency preparedness regulations at decommissioning nuclear power plants storing fuel in spent fuel pools,” (NRC,
Secy-01-0100, June 4, 2001) pp. 3,5.
4.
U.S. NRC, “In the matter of Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc, (Millstone Nuclear
Power Station, Unit No. 3)” Docket No. 50-423-LA-3, CLI-02-27, memorandum and order,
Dec. 18, 2002.
5.

Ibid.

6.

Ibid.

7.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 10,131 et seq, Subtitle B.

8.
NRC’s regulation of Davis-Besse regarding damage to the reactor vessel head
(Inspector General Report on Case No. 02-03S, Dec. 30, 2002, http://www.nrc.
gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-gen/2003/02-03s.pdf, accessed, Jan 4, 2003), p. 23.
9.
Letter to the Senate majority and minority leaders, and Speaker and minority
leader of the House of Representatives from the Attorneys General of Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West
Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, Oct. 8, 2002.
10. List of spent-fuel pools from Energy Resources International, 2002, “2002
Summary of U.S. Generating Company In-Pool Spent Fuel Storage Capability Projected Year That Full Core Discharge Capability Is Lost,” June, 2002,(http://www.nei.org/documents/Spent Fuel Storage Status.pdf, Dec. 9, 2002). Latitudes
and longitudes of the sites from http://geonames.usgs.gov/fips55.html.
11. In addition, Browns Ferry Unit 1 is nominally operational. However, it is defueled
and not in service.

tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards
12. Spent Nuclear Fuel Discharges from US Reactors 1994 (U.S. Department of Energy,
Energy Information Agency, report # SR/CNEAF/96-0, 1996.
13. J. G. Ibarra, W. R. Jones, G. F. Lanik, H. L. Ornstein and S. V. Pullani, Operating
Experience Feedback Report: Assessment of Spent Fuel Cooling (NRC, NUREG-1275,
1997), Vol. 12, figs. 2.1, 2.2.
14. See e.g. Analysis of Spent Fuel Heatup Following Loss of Water in a Spent Fuel
Pool: A Users’ Manual for the Computer Code SHARP by Energy and Environmental
Science, Inc. (NUREG/CR-6441/ BNL-NUREG-52494, 2002).
15. Strontium-90 (28-year half-life) and its decay product, yittrium-90 (64 hours)
account for another 40 percent of fission-product activity at 10 years [M. Benedict,T. H. Pigford, and H. W. Levi, Nuclear Chemical Engineering, 2nd ed. (McGraw-Hill,1981), Table 8.1]. However 90 Sr is less volatile than 137 Cs, especially under the oxidizing
conditions typical of a spent fuel pool fire. It and 90 Y are not gamma emitters and are
therefore a hazard primarily if ingested.
16.

Table of Isotopes, 7th ed., C. M. Lederer and V. S. Shirley, eds. (John Wiley, 1978).

17. Exposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident,” Annex J in Sources and Effectsof Ionizing Radiation (UN, 2000) http://www.unscear.org/pdffiles/annexj.pdf, “Withinthese areas, radiation monitoring and preventive measures were taken that have been
generally successful in maintaining annual effective doses within 5 mSv [0.5 rems]”(“Exposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident,” pp. 472–5).
18.

“Exposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident,” p. 457.

19. Fission in LEU fuel yields 3.15 Curies of 137 Cs per MWt-day of heat released.
One Curie is the radioactivity of one gram of radium (3.7 × 1010 disintegrations/sec).
1 Bequerel (Bq) is one disintegration/sec.
20. Range estimated in A Safety and Regulatory Assessment of Generic BWR and PWR
Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Plants by R. J. Travis, R. E. Davis, E. J. Grove,and M.A. Azarm (Brookhaven National Laboratory, NUREG/CR-6451; BNL-NUREG52498, 1997), Table 3.2. More detailed analysis is provided in Severe Accidents in Spent
Fuel Pools in Support of Generic Safety Issue 82 by V. L. Sailor, K. R. Perkins, J. R.
Weeks and H.R. Connell (Brookhaven National Laboratory, NUREG/CR-4982 or BNLNUREG-52083, 1987), Sections 3 and 4. Virtually all the 137 Cs would be released fromthe spent fuel before the melting temperature of zirconium (1850◦ C) is reached. See“Report to the American Physical Society by the study group on radionuclide releasefrom severe accidents at nuclear power plants,” Reviews of Modern Physics 57 (1985),
p. S64. However, it is possible that some of the older fuel might not catch fire and somefraction of the 137 Cs might plate out onto cool surfaces in the building.
21. For the “wedge model” the contamination level σ = [Q/(θ rRd )]exp(−r/Rd ) Ci/m2
where Q is the size of the release in Curies, θ is the angular width of a down-windwedge within which the air concentration is assumed to be uniform across the wedge
and vertically through the mixing layer, r is the downwind distance in meters, and Rd is
the “deposition length” Rd = Hvw /vd . H is the thickness of the mixing layer; vw is the windvelocity averaged over the mixing layer; and vd , the aerosol deposition velocity, measures
the ratio between the air concentration and ground deposition density. This “back-of-theenvelope” approximation was first used in the “Report to the American Physical Societyby the study group on light-water reactor safety,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 47, Supplement 1 (1975), p. S97. For a uniform population density, the population radiationdose is independent of θ. An extensive discussion of aerosol formation and deposition37

tj715-03

SGS.cls

38

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.
may be found in “Report to the American Physical Society by the study group on radionuclide release from severe accidents at nuclear power plants,” p. S69–S89. Data on
the frequency of different dispersion conditions in the U.S. and data on aerosol deposition rates may be found in Reactor Safety Study, (U.S. NRC, NUREG-75/014, 1975),
Appendix VI-A. See also: Probabilistic Accident Consequence Uncertainty Analysis: Dispersion & Deposition Uncertainty Assessment, (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission& Commission of European Communities, NUREG-6244 and EUR 15855EN, 1995),
Vols. 1–3.
22. D. I. Chanin and M. L. Young, Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume 1, User’s Guide,
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, SAND97-0594, March 1997. In theGaussian plume model with a mixing layer thickness H and a constant wind velocity
vw , the time-integrated plume concentration at a point on the ground a horizontal distance y from the centerline of the plume and a distance h below it is χ = [Q/(π σy σz vw )]P
exp[-y2 /(2σy2 )] {exp[-h2 /(2σz2 )] + n=1−∞ [exp[-(2nH-h)2 /(2σz2 )] + exp[-(2nH + h)2 /(2σz2 )]]}.
P
The term n=1−∞ [exp[-(2nH-h)2 /(2σz2 )] + exp[-(2nH + h)2 /(2σz2 )]] takes into account multiple reflections of the plume off the top of the mixing layer and the ground. Q, σy , and σz
are all functions of downwind distance. Q, the number of Curies in the plume, is reduced by deposition. The area deposition concentration is vd χ, where vd is the deposition
velocity.
23. The calculations used the same median values of mixing layer height (1000 m),
wind velocity (5 m/sec), and deposition velocity (0.01 m/sec) used in the wedge-model
calculation above. On the basis of a match with the wedge-model value θ r = 2.4 σy =11 km at r = 100 km downwind, dispersion conditions have been chosen to be Pasquill
D-type which the MACCS2 code parameterizes as σy = 0.1474x0.9031 and σz = 0.3x0.6532
m where x is the downwind distance in meters.
24. The heat of combustion of zirconium is 8.7 and 4.1 million j/kg in air and steam
respectively. We assume that the pool contains 80 tons of zirconium, i.e., 0.2 tons per
ton of U.
25. Most of the data in the charts are from 1998 data provided by utility
companies to the NRC and previously displayed on its web site at http://www.
nrc.gov/OPA/drycask/sfdata.htm. Post September 11, 2001, such data are no longer
available on the web. The storage capacity in the storage pools of a few plants has
increased since 1998 due to reracking with higher density racks. Such increases are included for the following reactors: Crystal River 3 [”Florida Power Corporation, Crystal
River Unit 3, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significance” (NRC, Federal
Register (FR), v. 65, n. 177, pp. 55059–55061, Sept. 12, 2000)]; Callaway [FR, v. 64, n. 10,
pp. 2687–2688, Jan. 15, 1999]; Nine Mile Point 1 [FR, v. 64, n. 70, pp. 18059–18062,
April 13, 1999]; and Kewaunee [FR, v. 65, n. 236, pp. 76672–76675, Dec. 7, 2000]. Threeother plants (Enrico Fermi 1, Comanche Peak, and Vermont Yankee) have re-racked,
but no capacity data are available (no environmental assessments were done for them).
Brunswick 1 and 2 and Robinson are shipping spent fuel to the Harris plant, also in North
Carolina and owned by Carolina Light and Power Company. Nine Mile Point 2, Pilgrim 1,
Summer, and Three Mile Island 1 plants intend to re-rack their spent fuel in thenext few years (“2002 Summary of U.S. Generating Company In-Pool Spent Fuel
Storage Capability Projected Year That Full Core Discharge Capability Is Lost”). Big
Rock Point, Browns Ferry 3, Diablo Canyon 1&2, Duane Arnold, Farley 1&2, Grand
Gulf 1, Haddam Neck, Humboldt Bay, Palo Verde 1–3, River Bend 1, San Onofre 1–
3, Sequoyah 1&2, Washington Nuclear, and Yankee Rowe plants, some of which arebeing decommissioned, all intend to add dry storage in the next few years (ibid). An

tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards
earlier version of this figure appeared in Allison Macfarlane, “Interim storage of spent
fuel in the United States,” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 26 (2001),
pp. 201–235.
26. “Simulation of the Chernobyl dispersion with a 3-D hemispheric tracer model” byJanusz Pudykiewicz, Tellus 41B (1989), pp. 391–412.
27.

“Exposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident,” Table 8.

28. One rem = 0.01 Sievert. For estimated exposure-dose coefficients, see Ionizing
Radiation: Sources and Biological Effects (UN, 1982), Annex E, Table 27 (external) andTable 33 (ratio of internal to external). For the external dose, the 137 Cs is assumed to have
weathered into the soil with an exponential profile with a mean depth of 3 cm. Shielding
by buildings is estimated to reduce the dose by a factor of 0.4 for wooden homes and 0.2
for masonary homes. The resulting total dose-reduction is by a factor of about 1/6. Self
shielding by the body is assumed to reduce the dose by an additional average factor of
0.7. See also Federal Guidance Report No. 12: External Exposure To Radionuclides In
Air, Water, And Soil by K. F. Eckerman and J. C. Ryman (Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
EPA-402-R-93-081, 1993) Table II-6. The additional cancer death risk was assumed to
be 1/1700 per rem, including a recommended reduction factor of 2 for the risk of chronic
radiation per rem relative to that from an “acute” (instantaneous) dose such as that at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki [“Epidemiological Evaluation of Radiation-Induced Cancer,”
Annex I in Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation (UN, 2000), p. 361.] Note thatarguments about the validity of a linear extrapolation to low doses from the high doses
at which epidemiological evidence is available are irrelevant in this dose range. The
mean dose among the cohort of Hiroshima-Nagasaki survivors who have been followed in
Life-Span Study is 21 rem (op. cit., Table 6). A statistically significant response has beenfound down to 5 rem for solid cancers with a cancer dose-effect response for solid cancers
linear up to about 300 rem [“Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors, Report 12,
Part I. Cancer: 1950–1990” by D. A. Pierce, Y. Shimizu et al. Radiation Research 146 (1),p. 10, 1996.]
29. A Safety and Regulatory Assessment of Generic BWR and PWR Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Plants. The value of the agricultural land was assumed to be$0.2 million/km2 . The value of the condemned land would therefore be $0.4–1.4 billion. The remainder of the cost was assumed to be $0.074 million per permanent evacuee. Therefore, 1.6–7.6 million people would be permanently evacuated in this scenario.
$17–279 billion of these consequences were assumed to occur beyond 50 miles where
the population density was assumed to be 80/km2 . This would correspond to an evacuated area beyond 50 miles of 1100–19,000 km2 . We have done a calculation using
the MACCS2 code to obtain, for 3.5–35 MCi 137 Cs releases with 40 MWt plume heat,damage estimates of $50–700 billion plus 50,000–250,000 cancer deaths among people
remaining on contaminated land [2000 person-rem per cancer death, valued in NRC
cost-benefit analyses at $4 million per cancer death, (Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook NUREG/BR-0184, 1997)]. An average population density of 250/km2 was assumed (population density of the U.S. Northeast). Evacuation was assumed if the projected radiation dose was greater than 0.5 rems
per year (EPA Protective Action Guide recommendation). The losses due to evacuation
were assumed to be $140,000/person for fixed assets, $7,500/person relocation costs, and$2,500/hectare for farmland abandoned because of the projected contamination level of
its produce. Two possible decontamination factors (DF) were assumed: DF = 3 and 8 atcosts of $9,000 and $20,000 per hectare of farmland (assumed to be 20% of the total area)
and $19,000 and $42,000 per resident (value for a “mixed-use” urban area), excluding39

tj715-03

SGS.cls

40

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.
the cost of disposal of the radioactive waste [based on D.I. Chanin and W.B. Murfin,
Estimation of Attributable Costs from Plutonium Dispersal Accidents (Sandia National
Laboratory, SAND96-0957, 1996)]. Based on these cost assumptions, no farmland would
be decontaminated but decontamination would be performed in residential areas up to
contamination levels that prior to decontamination would result in doses of 4 rems per
year up to the end of temporary relocation periods that are assumed to last up to 30
years. The range of 137 Cs contamination levels in areas where decontamination would
be carried out is from about 2.5 up to 80 Ci/km2 .
30. Calculated using the Origin 2.1 computer code [ORIGEN 2.1: Isotope Generation
and Depletion Code Matrix Exponential Method, CCC-371 ORIGEN 2.1, (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Radiation Safety Information Computational Center, August 1996)].
31. In 1996, the NRC staff reported an example in which boiling would occur in 8 hours
instead of 4.5 days because the core had been loaded into the spent fuel pool 5 days after
shutdown instead of 23 in a previous refueling at the same reactor (NRC, “Briefing On
Spent Fuel Pool Study,” Public Meeting, November 14, 1996, http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/commission/tr/1996/19961114a.html, accessed Dec. 10, 2002, p. 27).
This is consistent with the following calculation: Assume a generic PWR pool with anarea of 61.3 m2 and depth of 11.5 m containing about 600 metric tons of water, as
described in Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants, p. A1A-2. [A more detailed calculation would take into account theamount of water displaced by the fuel assemblies. In subsequent calculations, we willassume 471 kg U per fuel assembly with cross-section of 21.4 × 21.4 cm and a heightof 4 meters. Such an assembly has 59% water content by volume (Nuclear Engineering
International, September 2001, p. 24).] For a pool inventory of 340 tons of 1–20 year-old
fuel generating an average decay heat of 3 kWt/tU with or without a freshly discharged
core containing 85 metric tons of uranium generating 120 kWt/tU decay heat 4 days after
shutdown, the total decay heat would be 1 or 11 MWt. Given the heat capacity of water of4200 joules/kg-◦ C, the decay heat would raise the temperature of the pool from 30 to100◦ C in 4.4 or 50 hours and thereafter boil off 0.026 or 0.29 meters of water per hour(the latent heat of vaporization of water is 2.3 Mj/kg). Assuming that there are 7 metersof water above the fuel, it would take 1 or 11 days before the radiation shield provided
by the water covering was reduced to 1 meter.
32. In principle, removing the spent fuel assemblies and reshuffling the rest before
inserting fresh fuel should be faster. However, any departure from a choreographed
reshuffle (due, for example, to discovery of damaged fuel) requires time-consuming recalculation of the subcriticality margin (David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists,
private communication, Jan. 7, 2003).
33. “NRR [Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff] determined through a recent survey ofall power reactors . . . that some sites do not have anti-siphon devices in potential siphon
paths. During refueling operations . . . a flow path exists to the reactor vessel, inventory
loss [could occur] through the RHR (residual heat removal), chemical and volume control
system, or reactor cavity drains [or the] shipping cask pool drains. For these situations
in many designs, the extent of the inventory loss is limited by internal weirs or internal drain path elevations, which maintain the water level above the top of the stored
fuel . . . During the NRR survey assessment, the staff found that five SFPs (spent fuelpools) have fuel transfer tubes that are lower than the top of the stored fuel without interposing structures.” (Operating Experience Feedback Report: Assessment of Spent Fuel
Cooling, NUREG-1275, pp. 5–6). In 1994, about 55,000 gallons [200 m3 ] of water leaked
from piping, which had frozen in an unheated containment fuel pool transfer system

tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards
at the closed Dresden I station. The NRC noted the potential for a “failure of 42”[inch,
1 m] fuel transfer tube [which] could rapidly drain fuel pool to a level several feet [>1m] below top of [660] stored fuel bundles.” [Dresden, Unit 1 Cold Weather Impact on
Decommissioned Reactor (Update), U.S. NRC, January 24, 1994, pp. 94–109].
34. Operating Experience Feedback Report: Assessment of Spent Fuel Cooling, NUREG1275, p. 32 and Fig. 3.2.
35. Doses calculated from a dry pool containing 650 tons of 43 MWd/kgU spent fuelin a square array with 1.4 cm pitch. The fuel is a composite with a mix of the following
cooling times: 20 tons each at 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years; 100 tons at 5 years; 240 tons
at 10 years; and 250 tons at 25 years. The gamma-ray source intensities within the fuelwere calculated using ORIGEN2, grouped in 18 energy intervals. These radiation-source
data were then used as input to the MCNP4B2 code [Los Alamos National Laboratory,Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code System (Radiation Safety Information Computational Center, CCC-660 MCNP4B2 1998)] which was used to perform radiation transport calculations to obtain the flux and energy spectra of the gamma-rays 1 m above thefloor of the building at radii of 5, 10 and 15 meters from its center. The radiation doses
were then calculated using the “American National Standard for Neutron and GammaRay Fluence-to-Dose Factors” (American Nuclear Society, ANSI/ANS-6.1.1, 1991) andan average self-shielding factor of 0.7. The concrete has a density of 2.25 gms/cc and acomposition in weight percent of 77.5% SiO2 , 6.5% Al2 O3 , 6.1% CaO, 4.0% H2 O, 2.0%
Fe2 O3 , 1.7% Na2 O, 1.5% K2 O 0.7% MgO (“Los Alamos concrete, MCNP4B2 manual,
pp. 5–12). In the absence of a roof, the dose rates at 10 and 15 meters would be reducedby factors of 0.37 and 0.24 respectively. Similar calculations for 400 tons of 33MWd/kgU
spent fuel (25% each 30-day, 1-yr, 2-yr and 3-yr cooling) reported in Spent Fuel Heatup
Following Loss of Water During Storage, Appendix C: “Radiation dose from a drained
spent-fuel pool” give a dose rate of about 300 rads/hr at ground level 15 m from thecenter of a rectangular 10.6 × 8.3 m pool.
36. Among the emergency workers at Chernobyl, deaths began for doses above
220 rems. The death rate was one third for workers who had received doses in the 420–
620 rem range and 95% (1 survivor) for workers who received higher doses (“Exposuresand effects of the Chernobyl accident,” Table 11).
37. Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear
Power Plants, p. A1A-1.
38. Figure 5 was calculated with ORIGEN 2.1 assuming that the initial enrichments
for burnups of 33, 43, 53 and 63 MWd/kgU were 3.2, 3.7, 4.4 and 5.2% respectively. The
PWRU.LIB and PERU50.LIB cross-section files were used to calculate the production
rates of actinides and fission products in PWR fuel.
39. S. R. Tieszen, Fuel Dispersal Modeling for Aircraft-Runway
Scenarios (Sandia National Laboratory, SAND95-2529, 1995), p. 73.
40.

ImpactFuel Dispersal Modeling for Aircraft-Runway Impact Scenarios, p. 70.

41. World Trade Center Building Performance Study, (FEMA, 2002) Appendix E,
http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm accessed Dec. 10, 2002.
42. On May 16, 1979, the government of the German state of Lower Saxony issued aruling about a proposed nuclear fuel center at Gorleben. One aspect of the ruling was arefusal to license high-density pool storage, in part from concern about war impacts. The
ruling followed a public hearing in which more than 60 scientists, including two of thepresent authors (J. B. and G. T.) presented their analyses. A third author (K. J.) had been41

tj715-03

SGS.cls

42

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.
responsible for the design of the pool and subsequently oversaw the design of the drycasks currently used in Germany [Klaus Janberg, “History and actual status of aircraft
impact and anti-tank weaponry consequences on spent fuel storage installations,” paper
presented at the International Conference on Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Moscow IFEM,
September 11, 2002]. A brief description (in German) and photographs and diagramsof the German dry-cask central storage facility that was built at Gorleben instead of aspent-fuel pool may be found in Brennelementlager Gorleben, BLG, http://www.math.unihamburg.de/math/ign/hh/1fi/blg.htm, accessed Dec. 10, 2002. A similar dry-cask storage
facility was built instead of a storage pool at Ahaus, Germany.
43. Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate (HSK), Memorandum, “Protecting Swiss Nuclear Power Plants Against Airplane Crash” (undated), p. 7. Thismemo also describes Swiss protection requirements (the same as those inGermany) http://www.hsk.psi.ch/pub eng/publications/other%20publications/2001/AN4111 E-Uebersetz Flz-absturz.pdf accessed, Jan. 9, 2003.
44. “In estimating . . . catastrophic PWR spent fuel pool damage from an aircraft crash(i.e., the pool is so damaged that it rapidly drains and cannot be refilled from either onsite
or offsite resources), the staff uses the point target area model and assumes a direct hit
on a 100 × 50 foot spent fuel pool. Based on studies in NUREG/CR-5042, Evaluation ofExternal Hazards to Nuclear Power Plants in the United States, it is estimated that 1of 2 aircrafts are large enough to penetrate a 5-foot-thick reinforced concrete wall . . . It
is further estimated that 1 of 2 crashes damage the spent fuel pool enough to uncover
the stored fuel (for example, 50 percent of the time the location is above the height ofthe stored fuel)” (Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning
Nuclear Power Plants, p. 3–23).
45. See e.g. Accident Analysis for Aircraft Crash into Hazardous Facilities (U.S. Department of Energy, DOE-STD-3014-96, 1996), Appendix C. We have used these formulae
for an aircraft turbine shaft weighing 400 kg with a diameter of 15 cm and travelingat 156 m/sec (350 miles per hour, speed of the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon
according to NEI, see following footnote) and 260 m/sec [590 miles/hr, estimated speedof the aircraft that crashed into the World Trade Center South Tower, (World Trade
Center Building Performance Study)]. They predict that such an object could perforatea reinforced concrete wall 0.8 to 1.8 meters thick, depending primarily on the impact
speed.
It is possible that a spent-fuel pool, with its content of water mixed with dense fuelassemblies, might resist penetration more like an infinitely thick slab. In this case, therange of penetration depths for the large aircraft turbine shaft becomes 0.4–1.3 m. Fora useful review, which shows the great uncertainty of empirical penetration formulae
and the very limited ranges over which they have been tested empirically, see Review of
empirical equations for missile impact effects on concrete by Jan A. Teland (Norwegian
Defense Research Establishment, FFI/RAPPORT-97/05856, 1998).
An additional reference point is provided by the NRC staff’s conclusion that “if thecask were dropped on the SFP [spent-fuel-pool] floor, the likelihood of loss-of-inventory
given the drop is 1.0” (Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants, p. A2C-3). For a drop height of 12 m (the depth of apool) the kinetic energy of a 100-ton cask (neglecting the absorption of energy by displacing water and crushing spent-fuel racks) is about 107 joules—about the same as
the energy of the large jet turbine shaft at a velocity of about 240 m/sec. Because of
the larger hole that the cask would have to punch, the energy absorbed by the structure would be expected to be larger. It should also be noted that the weight of theentire jet engine is about 4,000 kg, its diameter, including the fan blades, is about

tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards
the same as a spent-fuel cask and its kinetic energy at 240 m/sec is about 10 times
greater.
46. Aircraft crash impact analyses demonstrate nuclear power plant’s structural strength (Nuclear Energy Institute Press release, Dec. 2002, http://www.nei.
org/documents/EPRINuclearPlantStructuralStudy200212.pdf, accessed Jan. 5, 2003).
47. Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear
Power Plants, p. A2C-3.
48. Analysis of the Total System Lifecycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, (U.S. DoE, Office of Civilian Waste management, Report # DOE/RW0533, 2001), pp. 1–7.
49. “Nuclear Waste: Uncertainties about the Yucca Mountain Repository Project,” testimony by Gary Jones, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. General
Accounting Office, before the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 21 March 2002.
50.

Charles Pennington, NAC International, private communication, Dec. 2, 2002.

51. In recently installed racks, the boron is contained in Boral sheets composed ofboron carbide (B4 C) in an aluminum matrix, permanently bonded in a sandwich between
aluminum plates. This design has proven more durable than a previous design in whichboron carbide was mixed 50 percent by volume with carbon, formed into a 1/4-inch thicksheet and clad in 1/8-inch stainless steel (Spent Fuel Heatup Following Loss of Water
During Storage, p. 19).
52. A vendor’s representation of dense-pack fuel racks is available at http://www.
holtecinternational.com
53. This problem could be mitigated to some degree by putting holes in the walls of
the dense-pack racks—subject to limitation that considerable neutron absorption in thewalls is required keep the spent fuel subcritical. The holes would allow air to circulate
through the racks above the water surface. The 1979 Sandia report concluded that suchan approach could be effective for fuel a year or more old (Spent Fuel Heatup Following
Loss of Water During Storage, pp. 78).
54. Based on heat capacities of UO2 and Zr of 0.3 joules/gmU-◦ C [S. Glasstone and
A. Sesonske, Nuclear Reactor Engineering (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1967) Table A7]
and assuming 0.2 grams of Zr per gram U, the heat capacity of reactor fuel is about
0.4 joules/gmU-◦ C. In a 1997 study done by Brookhaven National Laboratory for the
NRC, the “critical cladding temperature” was chosen as 565◦ C. This was the temperature for “incipient clad failure” chosen in the previous Workshop on Transport Accident
Scenarios where “expected failure” was fixed at 671◦ C. The Brookhaven group chosethe lower temperature for fuel failure in a spent-fuel-pool drainage accident because “itwould take a prolonged period of time to retrieve the fuel, repair the spent fuel pool orestablish an alternate means of long-term storage” [A Safety and Regulatory Assessmentof Generic BWR and PWR Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Plants, pp. 3–4.]
55. The gas-diffusion-limited zirconium oxidization rate has been parameterized as
dw2 /dt = Ko exp(−Ea /RT) in the range 920–1155◦ C, where w is the weight gain of thecladding (g/cm2 ) due to oxidation, K0 is the rate constant [5.76 × 104 (gm/cm2 )2 /sec], Ea
is the activation energy (52990 calories), R is the gas constant (1.987 cal/◦ K), and T
is the absolute temperature (◦ K) (Spent Fuel Heatup Following Loss of Water During
Storage, p. 31–34). At 920◦ C, therefore, Ko exp(−Ea /RT) = 1.1 × 10−5 (gm/cm2 )2 /sec. The43

tj715-03

SGS.cls

44

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.
fuel cladding contains 0.34 gmZr/cm2 . w2 for full oxidation to ZrO2 will therefore be about
0.014 (gm/cm2 )2 . Thus, the characteristic time for complete oxidation would be about 15
minutes at 920◦ C and would decrease rapidly as the temperature increased further.
The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) has raised the possibility that, for high-burnup fuel, the ignition temperature might be considerably lower:“there were issues associated with the formation of zirconium-hydride precipitates in
the cladding of fuel especially when the fuel has been taken to high burnups. Many metal
hydrides are spontaneously combustible in air. Spontaneous combustion of zirconiumhydrides would render moot the issue of ‘ignition’ temperature . . . ” In addition, the
ACRS points out that nitrogen reacts exothermically with zirconium, “[this] may well
explain the well-known tendency of zirconium to undergo breakaway oxidation in air
whereas no such tendency is encountered in either steam or in pure oxygen” [“Draft
Final Technical Study of Spent Fuel Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power
Plants,” letter from Dana Powers, ACRS chairman, to NRC Chairman Meserve, April
13, 2000, p. 3].
56. Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear
Power Plants, “Executive Summary,” p. x.
57. Between 300 and 1200 ◦ K, the longitudinal conductivity of a 0.4-cm radius rod of UO2 clad in zircalloy with an inside radius of 0.41 cm and acladding thickness of 0.057 cm is about k = 0.06 Watts/(◦ C/cm) [based on
temperature-dependent conductivities for UO2 falling from 0.076 to 0.03 andfor zircalloy rising from 0.13 to 0.25 Watts/[cm2 -(◦ C/cm)] (International Nuclear
Safety Center, http://www.insc.anl.gov/matprop/uo2/cond/solid/thcsuo2.pdf, Table 1;
http://www.insc.anl.gov/matprop/zircaloy/zirck.pdf, Table 1, accessed Dec. 19, 2002)].
The density of uranium in the UO2 is about 10 gm/cc. A rod 400 cm long would therefore
contain about 2 kg of uranium. For a fuel rod L cm long containing M kg U and cooled
at both ends to a temperature T0 , with a heat generation rate of P Watts/kgU uniformly
distributed along its length, the temperature difference between the center and ends
would be PML/(8k) ≈ 1700 P ◦ C. Taking into account the thermal conductivity of thesteel boxes and boral surrounding the fuel assemblies in the dense-pack configuration
lowers this estimated temperature increase to approximately 1000 P ◦ C.
58. Within the fuel assembly, the net radiation flux in the z direction is approximately
F = −4fσ T3 (dT/dz)hλz i where f is the fraction of the area of the fuel assembly between thefuel rods (about 0.6) and hλz i = ∫dÄ(Cosθ)[λ(θ,φ)] is the average distance that radiation
travels up the fuel assembly before being reabsorbed—on the order of centimeters. We
have made the approximation that the difference in temperature between the radiating
and absorbing points can be calculated using the first derivative of T. We also assume
that the rate of heat generation is constant at a rate of PM/(AL) Watts/cm3 along thelength (L = 400 cm) of the fuel assembly. In this approximation, the temperature profile◦
can be calculated as T = [1000PM/(Aσ )]{[−(z/L) − z2 /(2L 2 )]L/(fhλz i) + 1}1/4 K, where z
is negative and measured in centimeters downward from the top of the fuel assembly.
◦
When z = −L, T(−L) = 600{P[1 + (0.8L/hλz i)]}1/4 K. For P = 1 kW/tU, T(−L) = 2300 or◦
1700 C if hλz i = 1 or 3 cm respectively.
59. Assume that a fuel rod has a length L, contains M = 2 kg of uranium, generates
decay heat at a rate of P watts/kgU, has a temperature Tmax at its top and that the waterlevel is at zw m (where z = 0 is the bottom of the fuel). In the approximation where theheat rate along the length of the fuel is constant, the combined rate of input of heat into
the water from the submerged part of the fuel and from black body radiation impinging
on the water’s surface will be P− = PMzw /L + Pbb− . The heat generation rate of thetj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards
fuel above the water will be P+ = PM(L − zw )/L. The cooling of the above-water fuel islimited, however, by the availability of steam generated by the below-water fuel. The
rate of steam generation will be P− /2300 grams/sec. When z falls below the bottom of thefuel assembly, P− = Pbb− . We approximate Pbb− = (A/264)σ (T0 + 273)4 where (A/264) =2 cm2 is the area in a fuel-assembly box for each of the 264 fuel rods and T0 is thetemperature at the bottom of the fuel assembly. In Spent Fuel Heatup Following Loss of
Water During Storage, Fig. B-1, it is estimated that T0 = 200◦ C at the point when Tmax =900◦ C, i.e., when the fuel is about to fail. This gives Pbb− ≈ 0.6 Watts. Assuming perfect
heat transfer, the steam will heat to a temperature Tmax ◦ C as it passes through the fuelassembly and absorb approximately 2.1(Tmax -100) joules per gram. Therefore, in orderto remove the power P+ and maintain the above water fuel in equilibrium, it is necessarythat P+ < 2.1(Tmax −100)Pbb− /2300 M ≈ 0.3 Watts/kgU when Tmax = 1200◦ C. This meansthat the fuel has to be about 100 years old after discharge before steam cooling willremain effective when the water level drops to the bottom of the fuel assembly.
60. For information on the strength of steel at high temperatures, see
http://www.avestapolarit.com/template/Page2171.asp, accessed Jan. 10, 2003. The
zircaloy tubes of a Canadian CANDU reactor slumped at 1200◦ C (see CANDU
Safety # 17—Severe Core Damage Accidents, V. G. Snell, Director Safety& Licensing, http://engphys.mcmaster.ca/canteach/techdoclib/CTTD-0014/CTTD-001417/17of25.pdf, accessed Jan 10, 2003).
61. For a square box with inside dimensions of 0.225 m containing a fuel assemblywith 264 rods with diameters of 0.95 cm, [Analysis of Spent Fuel Heatup Following Lossof Water in a Spent Fuel Pool: A Users’ Manual for the Computer Code SHARP, Tables
2.1 and 2.2].
62. This can be derived from the gas momentum conservation equation, ∂(ρv)/∂t +∂(ρv2 )/∂z + PL = −∂P/∂z − ρg where ρ is the air density, v is its velocity, P is the pressure, PL represents the pressure loss due to friction in the channel and g = 10 m/sec2
is the gravitational constant. For an equilibrium situation, the first term disappears.
Integrating from the bottom of the spent fuel (z = 0) to its top (z = L = 4 m) givesρL (vL )2 − ρ0 (v0 )2 + ∫L0 PL dz = P(0) − P(L) − g ∫L0 ρdz . Assuming that: the pressure is constant across the top and bottom of the spent fuel, the gas velocity is constant below the
spent fuel, the air velocity is zero at the top of the down-comer, and neglecting friction
losses in the down-comer and beneath the spent fuel, we may subtract the momentum
conservation equation for the down-comer (dc) from that for the fuel assembly (fa) andobtain ρL (vL )2 + ∫L0 PL dz = g ∫L0 [ρdc − ρfa ]dz. As indicated in the text, we approximate ρ0= 1 kg/m3 , ∫L0 ρdc dz ≈ Lρ0 , and ∫L0 ρfa dz ≈ 0.5 Lρ0 . This gives ρL (vL )2 + ∫L0 PL dz ≈ 0.5 gρ0 L= 20 joules/m3 . Noting that ∂(ρv)/∂z is a constant and that, at constant pressure, ρ ∼ T−1 ,where T is the absolute temperature, ρL (vL )2 = ρ0 (v0 )2 (TL /T0 ), where TL = 1173 ◦ K at theignition point. We assume that T0 = 100 ◦ C = 373 ◦ K. We then obtain 3.1(v0 )2 + ∫L0 PL dz= 20 joules/m3 and v0 ≈ 2.5 m/s, if the PL term is neglected.
PL may be approximated as the sum of a loss term due to the constriction of the
air passing through the base-plate hole and surface friction within the fuel assembly,∫L0 PL dz = K0 ρ0 (v0 )2 + ∫L0 fρv2 dz/(2DH ). Here K0 = 2(1−x)/x, x = (Ah /Af )2 , Ah is the area ofthe hole in the base-plate and Af = S2 – 264 π(D/2)2 is the cross-sectional area of the air
flow inside the box around the fuel assembly. (S = 0.225 m is the inside width of the box
and D = 0.0095 m is the outside fuel-rod diameter). For a dense-pack arrangement witha 5 inch [13 cm] hole in the base-plate, x ≈ 0.15 and K0 ≈ 11.3. In the second pressureloss term, L = 4m is the height of the fuel assembly, f is the friction factor, DH = 4 Af /Pw
is the “hydraulic diameter” of the channel, and Pw = 4S + 264 π D is the total perimeter45

tj715-03

SGS.cls

46

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.
of all the surfaces in the cross-section (Users’ Manual for the Computer Code SHARP,
pp. 4–7, 4–16). For the fuel assembly in our example, DH ≈ 0.015 m. The friction factor
may be written as f = C/(Re)n , where Re = ρv DH /µ is the Reynolds number, and µ is
the viscosity of air (31 × 10−6 pascal-seconds at 600◦ K). The exponent n = 1 for laminarflow (Re < 2100), which will be seen to be the case in the fuel assembly. The coefficientC ∼ 100 within the fuel assembly in the approximation where all rods are treated asinterior rods (ibid., p. 4–7, 4–16/17). Thus, ∫L0 PL dz = K0 ρ0 (v0 )2 + {Cµ/[2(DH )2 ]} ∫L0 vdz≈ K0 ρ0 (v0 )2 + 55v0 joules/m3 , where we have approximated ∫L0 vdz ≈ 2Lv0 , where v0 is
the entrance velocity to the air at the base of the fuel assembly. If we add this friction
pressure term to the equation at the end of the paragraph above, we get 14.4(v0 )2 +55 v0 = 20 joules/m3 or v0 ≈ 0.33 m/sec.
An approximation of open-rack storage could be obtained by dropping the base-plate
constriction term (i.e., setting x = 1) and dropping the S in the perimeter term above.
Then, if the center-to-center spacing of the fuel assemblies is increased by a factor of
51/2 in going from dense-pack to an open-array spacing with a fuel-assembly density
lower by a factor of five, DH ≈ 0.1 m and the equation above becomes 3.1(v0 )2 + 1.24
v0 = 20 joules/m3 , or v0 = 2.3 m/sec, which would make it possible to cool a pool filledwith fuel generating about 100 KWt/tU. If the hot fuel were surrounded by cooler fuelassemblies, cross flow from the cooler to the hot assemblies would provide still morecooling.
63. Users’ Manual for the Computer Code SHARP, Figs. 6.3 and 6.5. Our result obtained in the previous footnote corresponds to the case for a wide (e.g., 8-inch or 20 cm)
downcomer and constant room temperature.
64.

Spent Fuel Heatup Following Loss of Water During Storage, fig. 3, p. 85.

65. The 2001 Users’ Manual for the Computer Code SHARP notes the availability of
only “limited data [from] one experiment . . . in a three parallel channel setup” (p. 5-1).
66. Severe Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools in Support of Generic Safety Issue 82 by V. L.
Sailor, K. R. Perkins, J. R. Weeks, and H. R. Connell (Brookhaven National Laboratory,
NUREG/CR-4982; BNL-NUREG-52093, 1987), p. 52.
67.

Op cit, pp. 52, 53, 63.

68.

Complete blockage would, however, tend to quench the fire.

69. See, for example: J. H. Jo, P. F. Rose, S. D. Unwin, V. L. Sailor, K. R. Perkins andA. G. Tingle, Value/Impact Analyses of Accident Preventive and Mitigative Options for
Spent Fuel Pools (Brookhaven National Laboratory, NUREG/CR-5281, 1989). Measures
discussed and rejected because of perceived lack of cost-benefit included low density
storage and water sprays. Management recommendations to reduce risk have been considered in, Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear
Power Plants.
70. To compute the 0.7 and 5 percent probabilities, we compared an investment of$5 billion in dry storage casks (midpoint of our estimated $3.5–7 billion cost range)
with a range of estimated costs for spent fuel fires. In footnote 29 the median damages(including cancer deaths at $4 million each) from a 10–100 percent release of 137 Cs from
400 tons of spent fuel are estimated at $250–1700 billion. We discount these damages to$100–750 billion because the risk would not be completely eliminated by the measuresthat we propose and their mitigating effect could occur decades after the investment.
The 0.6 − 2.4 × 10−6 probability of a spent-fuel fire per pool-year estimated in TechnicalStudy of Spent Fuel Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants (Table 3.1)

tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards
is equivalent to about 0.6 percent in 30 years for the 103 operating power reactors in
the U.S.
71.

Spent Fuel Heatup Following Loss of Water During Storage, “Conclusions,” p. 85.

72. Operating Experience Feedback Report, Assessment of Spent Fuel Cooling, NUREG1275, Vol. 12, p. 27.
73. Further discussion of defense in depth is provided in Robust Storage of Spent
Nuclear Fuel by Gordon Thompson (Institute for Resource and Security Studies,
Cambridge, MA, January 2003).
74. Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear
Power Plants, pp. 3–16 and Appendix 2C p. A2C-3 and –4.
75. Above, it was noted that an important motivation for moving the entire core into
the spent-fuel pool was the need to recalculate the subcriticality of the core in the reactor
pressure vessel if there are unplanned fuel movements. This problem deserves a separate
study of its own.
76. David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists, private communication, Jan. 9,
2003.
77. Assuming a thermal to electric power conversion efficiency of one third, an 85
percent capacity factor, and a fuel burnup of 47 MWd/kg. The Sandia study considered
fuel with a burnup of only 33 MWd/kgU. However, as can be seen from Figure 5, thedecay heat at short decay times (less than a year or so) is insensitive to the fuel burnup
because it is dominated by short-lived isotopes.
78. Fuel rod characteristics were for a Westinghouse 17 × 17–25 fuel assembly: uranium density, 9.25 g/cc; pellet radius, 0.41 cm; gap between fuel pellet and cladding, 0.008
cm; clad thickness, 0.057 cm; and outside radius of cladding, 0.475 cm (Nuclear FuelInternational, Sept. 2001, pp. 24–25). Fuel composition as a function of burnup was calculated with ORIGEN 2.1. Criticality calculations were carried out with the MCNP4B2
code.
79. For 4.4 percent enriched fuel with a burnup of 13.25 MWd/kgHM, introduction of
1 one-cm of borated stainless steel (one percent boron by weight) between rows of fuelassemblies reduces the peak neutron multiplication factor keff from 1.33 to 0.91. Fresh
fuel would be barely critical (keff = 1.05) for a spacing of about 2 cm.
80. Criticality control with soluble boron creates the danger, however, of a criticality
if a leaking pool is refilled with unborated water. Also, the water of BWRs must be freeof boron. The pressure vessel and connected plumbing of a BWR would therefore haveto be flushed after contact with boron-containing spent-fuel water.
81.

Spent Fuel Heatup Following Loss of Water During Storage, p. 63.

82.

Ibid.

83.

Op cit., p. 79.

84. A flow of 1 liter/sec can be maintained in a steel pipe with 2.5 cm inside diameterand a pressure drop of 0.015 atmosphere/m [ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers, 2001), p. 35.6].
85. This may have been what a National Academy of Sciences committee had in mind
when it stated “emergency cooling of the fuel in the case of attack could probably be
accomplished using ‘low tech’ measures that could be implemented without significant

47

tj715-03

SGS.cls

48

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.
exposure of workers to radiation” [Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science andTechnology in Countering Terrorism (National Academy Press, 2002), p. 43]. One of ourreviewers pointed out that a puncture hole in the stainless steel liner of the bottom of the
Hatch nuclear power plant spent fuel pool caused by a dropped 350-pound core-shroud
bolt in the mid 1990s was temporarily plugged with a rubber mat.
86. An interesting suggestion made by one of our reviewers also deserves further research: add to the escaping water a material such as is used to seal water-cooled automobile engines. Such sealant works by solidifying when it comes into contact withair.
87. The choice of age at transfer represents a tradeoff between cost and risk. We havepicked five years based on the capabilities of existing dry storage systems.
88. The U.S. has approximately 100 GWe of nuclear capacity or about 1 GWe of capacity
per spent-fuel pool. NAC projects that, in 2010, there will be 45,000 tons of spent fuel inpools (US Spent Fuel Update: Year 2000 in Review (Atlanta, Georgia: NAC Worldwide
Consulting, 2001), i.e. an average of 450 tons per pool. In five years, a GWe of capacity
discharges about 100 tons of fuel.
89. 2002 Summary of U.S. Generating Company In-pool Spent Fuel Storage Capability
Projected Year that Full Core Discharge Capability Lost,” (Energy Resources International, 2002, www.nei.org/documents/Spent Fuel Storage Status.pdf, accessed Dec. 14,
2002).
90. On average 350 tons of spent fuel would have to be removed from each of 100 pools(see note above). Spent fuel casks typically have a capacity of about 10 tons.
91. The dry storage casks currently licensed in the U.S. hhttp://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part072/part072-0214.htmli are: thick-walled: General
Nuclear Systems Castor V/21; overpack: Nuclear Assurance Corp. http://www.
nacintl.com: NAC Storage/Transport (NAC S/T; NAC C-28 S/T); NAC Multipurpose
Cannister System (NAC-MPS); NAC Universal Storage System (NAC-UMS); Transnuclear hhttp://www.cogema-inc.com/subsidiaries/transnuclear.htmli: NUHOMS horizontal modular storage system; Transnuclear TN-24, TN-32, and TN-68 Dry Storage
Casks; Holtec http://www.holtecinternational.com: HI-STAR 100 and HI-STORM 100;
British Nuclear Fuel Limited Spent Fuel Management System W-150 storage cask;
and Pacific Sierra (now BNFL Fuel Solutions) Ventilated Storage Cask System VSC24 hhttp://www.bnfl.comi. See also Information Handbook on Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installations by M. G. Raddatz and M. D. Waters (Washington, DC: U.S. NRC,
NUREG-1571, 1996).
92. F. Lange and G. Pretzsch, Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS)mbH; E. Hoermann, Dornier GmbH; and W. Koch, Fraunhofer Institute for Toxicology
and Aerosol Research, “Experiments to quantify potential releases and consequencesfrom sabotage attack on spent fuel casks,” 13th International Symposium on the Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material, Chicago Sept. 2001. Helium is often
used to fill dry casks because of its superior heat-transfer characteristics and for leakdetection. GNS-GNB did experiments in the 1980s to determine the temperature rise
if helium leaked out of a Castor cask and was replaced by air. It was found that the
maximum fuel rod temperature increased from about 400 to 460◦ C.
93. Helmut Hirsch and Wolfgang Neumann, “Verwundbarkeit von CASTOR-Behältern
bei Transport und Lagerung,” www.bund.net/lab/reddot2/pdf/studie castorterror.rtf. (Weare grateful to Hirsch for providing a summary in English.)tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards
94. If the hole were not plugged, the UO2 in the ruptured pins would begin to oxidize toU3 O8 , resulting in the pellets crumbling and releasing additional volatile fission products that could diffuse out of the hole (“History and actual status of aircraft impact andanti-tank weaponry consequences on spent fuel storage installations”).
95. A ceramic “Ballistic Protection System” was tested successfully on a CASTOR
cask by International Fuel Containers at the U.S. Army’s Aberdeen Proving Grounds inJune 1998 (Klaus Janberg, “History and actual status of aircraft impact and anti-tank
weaponry consequences on spent fuel storage installations”). For a 100-ton cask, theshield would weigh at least 50 tons.
96. “History and actual status of aircraft impact and anti-tank weaponry consequenceson spent fuel storage installations.”
97. “ the [6 cm] carbon steel liner ‘balloons’ and contracts the canister” (“Plane toughstorage” by Michael McGough and Charles Pennington, Nuclear Engineering International, May 2002). The simulation assumes that the steel will stretch up to 37% at astress of 30,000–70,000 psi (average of 3.4 × 108 pascals) without rupturing. The kinetic
energy of a 400-kg shaft traveling at a speed of 220 m/sec is about 107 joules. We havechecked the plausibility of this result using a simplified geometry in which a flat circular
sheet of steel 3.1 inches (8 cm) thick (taking into account the canister wall as well as
the liner) and 1 meter in radius is stretched into a cone by keeping its edges fixed andpressing its center point in a direction perpendicular to the original plane of the sheet.
In order for the sheet to absorb 107 joules by stretching in this way, the center point
would have to be pushed about 0.3 meters.
98. Grenzüberschreitende UVP gemäß Art. 7 UVP-RL zum Standortzwischenlager Biblis; Bericht an das Österreichische Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft
sowie an die Landesregierungen von Oberösterreich und Vorarlberg, Federal Environment Agency, Vienna, Austria, February 2002; as well as corresponding reports by theFederal Environment Agency concerning the sites of Grafenrheinfeld, Gundremmingen,Isar, Neckar and Philippsburg. (We are grateful to H. Hirsch for providing us with an
English summary of these reports.)
99. 3000 tons per year is the design capacity of the surface spent-fuel receiving facility
at Yucca Mountain (Daniel Metlay, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, private
communication, Nov 12, 2002). The rate of discharge of spent fuel from U.S. reactors is
likely to decline only slowly during the next decades. Eight plants have already received
20-year license extensions from the NRC, 14 more have applications for extension underreview, and, according the Nuclear Energy Institute, 26 more plan to apply for extensions
by 2005, http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=3&catid=286.
100. The design capacity would be for 40,000 tons of spent fuel. The fuel handlingcapability would be about 200 casks or 2000 tonsU per year (Max De Long, Excel Energy,
personal communication, November, 2002).
101. NAC estimates that the end-2000 US inventory of spent fuel was 42,900 tons,of which 2,430 tons was in dry storage. It estimates that the 2010 US inventory willbe 64,300 tons, of which 19,450 tons will be in dry storage [U.S. Spent Fuel Update:Year 2000 in Review (Atlanta, Georgia: NAC Worldwide Consulting, 2001)]. The small
increase in projected in-pool storage (4,400 tons) suggests that most U.S. spent-fuel pools
are already approaching their dense-packed capacity.
102. We have assumed an average fuel burnup during 2005-10 of 43 MWd/kgU (theapproximate average burnup in recent years), an average capacity factor of 0.85, and an49

tj715-03

SGS.cls

50

April 21, 2003

13:42

Alvarez et al.
average heat to electrical power conversion efficiency of one third. With these assumptions, the amount of spent fuel discharged in 5 years is simply 100P metric tons, where
P is the rated electrical generating capacity of the associated nuclear-power plant in
GWe.
103. The cask is made out of ductile cast iron and has the following dimensions andweights: length, 5.45 m; outer diameter 2.44 m; cavity length, 4.55 m; cavity diameter,
1.48 m; wall thickness, 35 cm; empty weight, 104 tons; loaded weight 123 tons [Transportand Storage Cask V/52 [GNS (Gesellschaft für Nuklear-Behälter mbH, 1997), p. 2, 4].
The CASTOR V/52 is similar to the CASTOR V/19 and V/21 except for being designed
to accommodate internally 52 BWR fuel assemblies.
104. The metal canister in the NAC-UMS is made of stainless steel and can hold 24 PWR
fuel assemblies or 56 BWR fuel assemblies. It is about 4.7 meters high, 1.7 meters indiameter, and has a wall thickness of 1.6 cm. The overpack is a reinforced-concrete
cylinder about 5.5 meters high and 3.5 meters outside diameter. The wall of this overpack
consists of a steel liner 6.4 cm thick and a layer of concrete 72 cm thick. Ambient air
passes through vents in the overpack, and cools the outside of the metal container by
natural convection.
105. NAC International could produce 180 casks per year within two-to-three
years (Charles Pennington, NAC International, personal communication, November, 2002). Holtec could currently produce 200 casks per year and could increase this rate to about 300 casks per year (Chris Blessing, Holtec, private communication, November, 2002). We assume 10 tons average storage capacity percask.
106. Based on discussions with cask manufacturers. The lower end of the range is forthin-walled casks with reinforced-concrete overpack. The upper end is for monolithic
thick-walled casks equipped with missile shields.
107. Allison Macfarlane, “The problem of used nuclear fuel: Lessons for interim solutions from a comparative cost analysis,” Energy Policy, 29 (2001) pp. 1379–1389.
108. Assuming a burnup of 43 MWd/kgHM and a heat-to-electric-energy conversion
ratio of one third.
109. Monthly Energy Review, September 2002 [U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, DOE/EIA-0035 (2002/09)], Table 9.9.
110. We thank one of our reviewers for pointing this out to us.
111. The walls and roof of the Gorleben building are about 50 and 15 cm thick reinforced
concrete respectively (from Klaus Janberg).
112. NAC estimates that, by 2010, the U.S. will have 19,450 tons of spent fuel in dry
storage (see note above). If we add 35,000 tons of older spent fuel from the storage pools,
the total will be about 55,000 tons or about 550 tons per GWe of U.S. nuclear generating
capacity.
113. The berms for the 300-cask site at the Palo Verde, Arizona nuclear power plant cost
$5–10 million (Charles Pennington, NAC, private communication, November 2002).
114. With new NRC guidelines (ISG11, rev.2), which allow dry storage with peak
cladding temperature up to 400◦ C, it is expected that a variant can be fielded witha capacity of 21 fuel assemblies with an average burnup of 60 MWd/tU (from Klaus
Janberg).

tj715-03

SGS.cls

April 21, 2003

13:42

Reducing U.S. Stored Spent Reactor Fuel Hazards
115. In 2000, cask tests were being conducted with fuel burnups of up to 60 MWd/kgHM(Susan Shankman and Randy Hall, “Regulating Dry Cask Storage,” Radwaste Solutions,
July/August 2000, p. 10).
116. More than 25 nuclear power plants are today owned by such “limited-liability
corporations” and additional corporate reorganizations are expected [Financial Insecurity: The Increasing Use of Limited Liability Companies and Multi-Tiered Holding
Companies to Own Nuclear Power Plants, by David Schlissel, Paul Peterson and Bruce
Biewald (Synapse Energy Economics, 2002), p. 1].
117. Monthly Summary of Program Financial and Budget Information (Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, May 31, 2002). In 2001, U.S. nuclear power plants
generated 769 million megawatt-hours net (Monthly Energy Review, September 2002,
Table 8.1). With the enactment of the Gramm/Hollings/Rudman Budget Act in 1987,
and the Budget Adjustment Act in 1990, the Nuclear Waste Fund ceased to be a standalone revolving fund. However, fees are placed in the General Fund Account of the U.S.
Treasury and interest is accrued as if it were still a separate revolving account.
118. Nuclear Waste Fund Fee Adequacy: An Assessment (Department of Energy,
DOE/RW- 0534, 2001). The report concludes that the revenues in the nuclear waste fundshould be adequate but that there could be problems if interest rates fall significantly,
or DOE incurs high settlement costs from lawsuits, or costs increase significantly.
119. The DOE negotiated with one utility company (PECO/Exelon) to take title to theirspent fuel while it remained at the reactor and to pay for dry cask storage with moneyfrom the Nuclear Waste Fund. The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled,
however, that DOE could not pay from the Fund to cover its own breach of its previous
commitment under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to begin moving spent fuel from
nuclear power plants to a deep underground repository by 1998 (Melita Marie Garza,
2002, “Exelon rivals win waste-suit round,” Chicago Tribune, September 26, 2002 andMatthew Wald, 2002, “Taxpayers to owe billions for nuclear waste storage,” New YorkTimes, September 26, 2002.)

51

TJ715-07

SGS.cls

April 8, 2003

19:21

Science and Global Security, 11:53–58, 2003
C 2003 Taylor and Francis
Copyright °0892-9882/03 $12.00 + .00
DOI: 10.1080/08929880390207771

Comments on: ‘‘ Reducing theHazards from Stored SpentPower-Reactor Fuel in the
United States’’
Allan S. BenjaminI am one of the reviewers of the paper entitled: “Reducing the Hazards fromStored Spent Power-Reactor Fuel in the United States,” and am also the principal author of the Sandia report that is cited several times by the authors of
the paper. The subject of spent-fuel pool vulnerabilities is a very important one
in the present day environment, and I am pleased to be able to provide input. I
think the paper correctly points out a problem that needs to be addressed, i.e.,
the fact that a loss of water from a high-density spent-fuel pool could have serious consequences. However, I also believe the paper falls short of addressing all
the considerations that accompany the problem. Some of these considerations
could affect the results of the cost-benefit analysis that is used to justify the authors’ proposed solution: the re-racking of the pool to a low-density, open-latticearrangement and the removal of the older fuel to dry storage casks. In a nutshell, the authors correctly identify a problem that needs to be addressed, butthey do not adequately demonstrate that the proposed solution is cost-effectiveor that it is optimal.
On the plus side of the assessment, I agree with the authors’ analysis ofwhat would happen if there were a total loss of water from a high-density
Received ; accepted.
Dr. Benjamin was formerly a Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff at Sandia
National Laboratories.
Allan S. Benjamin, Principal Scientist for Albuquerque Operations, ARES Corporation, 851 University Blvd. SE, Albuquerque, NM 87106. E-mail: abenjamin@arescorporation.com

53

TJ715-07

SGS.cls

54

April 8, 2003

19:21

Benjaminspent-fuel pool that is packed wall-to-wall with zirconium-clad fuel. If someof that fuel had been recently discharged from a reactor core, there is notmuch doubt that the release of fission products to the environment would besignificant. Our analyses in the referenced 1979 Sandia report did indeed showthat the hottest part of the pool would heat up to the point where the cladding
would first rupture and then ignite. Subsequent experiments we performed
with electrically heated zirconium tubes (not formally reported) showed that
there was a potential for a fire to propagate from hotter to colder fuel assemblies. It is not clear whether the fire would envelop the whole pool or just a partof it, but either way, the result would be undesirable.
I agree in principle with the calculations in the paper regarding the potential consequences of such an accident, except that it is unlikely that the wholeinventory of fission products captured in the spent fuel would escape to theenvironment or that the wind would blow in one direction only (as assumed in
the paper). Although there is clear evidence that some of the fuel would meltin such a situation, we don’t know how much. Since we don’t, it is conservative
and appropriate to assume that a large fraction of the fission product inventory
could become released to the environment. Whether that fraction is 0.20 or 1.00
doesn’t change the fact that the release would be unacceptable.
It is also correct to say, as the authors have pointed out, that the situation
could be even worse if enough water remained in the pool to cover the bottomof the storage racks so that air could not circulate, but not enough water to act
as a significant heat sink for all of the decay heat produced by the fuel. This
point was also made in the Sandia report.1
The authors’ assessment of probabilities of occurrence is also reasonable ina bounding sense. They correctly point out that the likelihood of an accident
leading to a critical loss of water is very low (estimated by the NRC to be lessthan one in 100,000 per pool per year). The probability of the same scenario
resulting from a terrorist attack is unknown, and so the authors postulate a
range of values. They point out, reasonably enough, that the upper end of therange could be significantly higher than the value for a loss of water initiatedby an accident. I personally believe that the probability of a successful terrorist
attack is very low, and I will give my reasons in a moment. Notwithstanding,the authors are correct in pointing out that the possibility of a terrorist attack
is an issue that requires serious attention.
The problem occurs when the authors assert that these figures prove thecost effectiveness of their proposed solution. Before a judgment on cost effectiveness can be made, a variety of additional considerations have to be taken
into account. These pervade all areas of the discussion: the calculation of theprobabilities of occurrence, the resulting consequences, the effectiveness of theTJ715-07

SGS.cls

April 8, 2003

19:21

Comments on Spent Fuel Article

proposed solution, the competing risks introduced by that solution, and the costof implementation.
Let’s talk first about the probability of a successful terrorist attack. The
assumed situation is that the adversaries create a large hole in the spent-fuelpool, near the bottom of the pool, without dispersing the fuel or significantly deforming the racking structure. That situation is very unlikely. Using explosives
or missiles, including the intentional crash of an aircraft, it would be difficult
to accomplish a loss of almost all the water in the pool without disrupting the
spent-fuel geometry. Significant damage to the racking structure or outrightdispersal of the fuel would create a geometry that is more coolable by air flow
and less susceptible to propagation of a zirconium fire than is the actual storage
geometry.
Moreover, it would be very difficult for adversaries to achieve enough water
loss by draining the pool even if they somehow gained direct access to the pool.
The drain valves and gates are all located high enough to prevent the waterfrom draining down to a dangerous level. As originally stated in the Sandia
report and acknowledged in the paper, something like 75% of the height of thefuel rods would have to be uncovered for an overheating condition to result.
Gaining access to the pool in itself would be a very difficult proposition.
The adversaries would have to figure out a way to avoid being detected by theon-site monitoring equipment and overcome by the on-site security forces. The
probability of success in this venture can be analyzed using existing tools, but
this has apparently not been done. Such tools exist at the company where I now
work, ARES, and at the laboratory where I used to work, Sandia. Both havemethods for identifying the pathways an adversary could take to a target andevaluating the probability of success associated with each pathway.
The upshot is that more work needs to be done in accounting for how anadversary’s method of attack would change the initial conditions of the analysis,
and in evaluating the adversary’s likelihood of success.
Now let’s discuss the consequences of a loss-of-water incident, which according to the paper could include “hundreds of billions of dollars” in property
loss. An accurate accounting of costs versus benefits requires a best-estimate
assessment of consequences, not a worst-case assessment. Normally, the evaluation is accomplished by formulating probability distributions to reflect the fullrange of radioactive releases that could emanate from the spent fuel pool andthe full range of meteorological conditions that could affect the dispersion ofthat material. The most commonly-used result from this analysis is the meanconsequence, which is obtained by sampling the probability distributions ina random fashion. It can reasonably be expected that the mean value of the
expected property loss would be considerably lower than the worst-case value.

55

TJ715-07

SGS.cls

56

April 8, 2003

19:21

BenjaminLet’s now progress to the subject of evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed solutions. The main one given in the paper is to remove all the fuel that ismore than five years old to dry storage casks and to re-rack the pool so that theremaining, younger spent fuel can be contained in a widely-spaced, open-latticearrangement. The arguments in favor of that approach appear attractive. First,
it assures that air cooling would be effective even if all the water were drained
from the pool. Second, it reduces the inventory of the long-lived fission products remaining in the pool, so that even if all of them were dispersed to theenvironment, the long-term effects would be sharply reduced.
Several important factors are not considered here. First, as mentioned
above, an adversary’s attack involving an explosive, a missile, or an airplanecrash that is serious enough to create a big hole in the spent-fuel pool would
also probably disperse the fuel or at least rearrange the geometry. Therefore,
the final configuration would not necessarily be more coolable than that for ahigh density pool subjected to the same insult. That leaves only the reduced
fission product inventory as a definitive point of difference that could reduce
the losses incurred from the event.
However, the results in the paper concerning radioactive contamination
are flawed by the fact that the shorter-lived radioisotopes are not considered.
Most notable among these are 131 I, which has a half-life of 8 days, and 134 Cs,
which has a half-life of just over two years. Most of these radionuclides arecontained within the younger fuel that still remains in the spent-fuel pool.
While they do not contribute as highly to long-term property loss as the longerlived isotope, 137 Cs, they contribute more highly to early fatalities and latent
cancer fatalities. Thus, a true cost-benefit accounting of the proposed solution
must include consideration of these short-lived but very nasty radioisotopes.
Then there is the question of how effective the dry storage casks would beover a long period of time. The paper correctly acknowledges that an airplanecrash into an array of dry storage casks could cause a release of radionuclides
to the environment. It also presumes that only a few of the many casks inthe array would be affected by the crash. Given the robust design of thesecasks, these observations are probably correct. However, the paper has failed toconsider that many materials degrade or become brittle after a long exposure toradioactivity. Degradation or embrittlement can lead to leakage. Cask leakage
has been a problem for some dry storage casks in the past, and the paper
should acknowledge this. In performing a cost-benefit analysis, the risk fromhigh probability, low consequence incidents, such as cask leakage, has to beconsidered along with the risk from low probability, high consequence incidents.
Finally, one must consider the competing risks. The process of removing
such a large amount of fuel from the spent-fuel pool and transferring it to theTJ715-07

SGS.cls

April 8, 2003

19:21

Comments on Spent Fuel Article

dry storage casks carries its own set of hazards. During the transfer process,both the probability of an accident and the degree of exposure in the event of apotential terrorist attack are greater than before or after the transfer. The paper
suggests that the transfer would take place over a ten-year period. Someone
needs to look at the question of vulnerability during that period.
Another competing risk can be identified for the authors’ proposed designchange, based on an earlier recommendation made in the Sandia report, to install emergency water sprays. The authors suggest that the hottest fuel should
be stored along the sides of the pool, where the spray would be heaviest even
if the building collapses on top of the pool. This argument ignores the fact thatheat removal by air cooling is most effective when the hottest fuel is stored
in the middle of the pool and the coolest fuel is stored along the sides. Thatarrangement promotes natural convective air flow currents, whereas the one
being proposed in the paper inhibits them.
The question of implementation costs is one that I am not prepared toaddress at the present time. I would note, however, that special considerationneeds to be given to the question of whether, on the basis of available spaceand security requirements, on-site dry storage of so much fuel is feasible at all
reactor sites.
As a final but pivotal point, the evaluation of costs versus benefits should
consider all plausible alternative risk reduction options. Certainly one such
option is to accelerate the transfer of the spent fuel from spent-fuel pools directly
to a permanent underground storage site. The paper claims that this process
could take decades, given the controversial status of the Yucca Mountain project
and the current budgetary limitations. However, if there is a national security
issue at stake, Government projects can be accelerated. The Manhattan Projectis a good example. It may turn out that when all risks and costs are taken into
account, a direct transfer to underground storage is more cost-effective than atemporary transfer to on-site storage casks and a re-racking of the spent-fuelpools.
In summary, the authors are to be commended for identifying a problem
that needs to be addressed, and for scoping the boundaries of that problem.
However, they fall short of demonstrating that their proposed solution is costeffective or that it is optimal.

NOTE AND REFERENCE
1. Although most of the references made in the paper to the Sandia report are accurate,in the version reviewed by me, the first paragraph in the Introduction made two incorrect
attributions. First, the accident evaluated in the Sandia study was a sudden loss of all
the water, not a “sudden loss of water cooling.” Loss of the water cooling system would

57

TJ715-07

SGS.cls

58

April 8, 2003

19:21

Benjaminnot result in the consequences cited by the authors since the water would remain as alarge heat sink. Second, the Sandia report did not state that the loss-of-water scenario
would lead to “the airborne release of massive quantities of fission products.” Althoughzircaloy burning and some fuel melting would certainly occur, the Sandia study stopped
short of evaluating, either qualitatively or quantitatively, the amount of fission productsthat would be released. Both of these points have now been corrected in the final versionof the article.

TJ715-08

SGS.cls

April 9, 2003

0:54

Science and Global Security, 11:59–60, 2003
C 2003 Taylor and Francis
Copyright °0892-9882/03 $12.00 + .00
DOI: 10.1080/08929880390207898

THE AUTHORS RESPOND TO
ALLAN BENJAMIN’S COMMENTS
Robert Alvarez, Jan Beyea, Klaus Janberg, Jungmin Kang,
Ed Lyman, Allison Macfarlane, Gordon Thompson,Frank N. von Hippel
As the multiple references to it in our article attest, we have learned a great
deal from the pioneering work of Allan Benjamin et al, Spent Fuel Heatup
Following Loss of Water During Storage (NUREG/CR-0649; SAND77-1371 R-3,
1979). Indeed, many of our conclusions and recommendations essentially echo
those made in that report 24 years ago, but never implemented because theprobability of an accidental loss of water was estimated to be too low to justify
action.
Benjamin argues that we should have estimated the probability that sabotage or terrorist attack might cause a loss of water. Indeed, he seems to suggestthat the probability can be calculated with some precision with methods that his
company offers. While we believe that systematic analysis is useful in identifying vulnerabilities, we are skeptical about the predictive value of probabilistic
calculations—especially for malevolent acts.
We respond more briefly to Benjamin’s other comments below:
Magnitude of the release of 137 Cs. We looked at 10 and 100 percent
releases—not just 100%.
Sensitivity to the constant-wind assumption. An estimate of the sensitivity of the contamination area to wind wander can be obtained by varying the
opening angle in the wedge model calculation. Increasing the opening angle
from 0.11 to 1 radians, for example, results in the area contaminated above
100 Ci/km2 increasing by about 20% for the 100% release and decreasing by
about a factor of 3 for the 10% release.
Feasibility of totally draining the pool through valves and gates. We
make no claim that this is possible. Rather we cite NRC staff concerns that a
number of pools could be drained below the top of the spent fuel. This would
result in very high radiation levels in the spent-fuel-pool building. Pools should

59

TJ715-08

SGS.cls

60

April 9, 2003

0:54

Authors Respond to Allan Benjamin

therefore be equipped with sources of makeup water that can be turned on froma remote location.
Probabilities that terrorist attacks would put dense-packed fuel into a
more coolable configuration and open-racked fuel into a less coolable
configuration. Benjamin makes both assertions. The first is far from obvious.
With regard to the second, we point out that the assumption that the geometryof the spent fuel is not changed is a limitation of our analysis—as it is of allother analyses of which we are aware. The NRC should commission studies of
the implications for coolability of potential changes in geometry.
Omission of 8-day halflife 131 I and 2-year halflife 134 Cs in the consequence calculations. Shorter-lived isotopes such as 131 I and one-year halflife 106 Ru could make significant contributions to short-term doses downwind
from a spent-fuel-pool fire. However, our analysis was limited to the long-term
consequences of such an accident where, as the consequences of the Chernobyl
accident demonstrate, 30-year halflife 137 Cs is the principle concern because it
can force the evacuation of huge areas for decades.
Effectiveness of dry casks over the long term. We propose on-site dry-cask
storage for about 30 years of older spent fuel that would, according to current
plans, remain in pools for that length of time. Spent-fuel casks have alreadybeen in use for about 20 years and there is no evidence that they cannot last
decades longer without significant deterioration.
Risks during spent-fuel transfer. We urge in the paper that these risks be
carefully examined and minimized before the transfer begins. However, the fuelwill have to be moved sooner or later in any case.
Availability of space for dry-cask storage. Nuclear power plants are surrounded by exclusion areas that provide ample space for a few tens of additional
casks.
Acceleration of Yucca Mtn. Project. It would probably be counterproductive at this stage to try to significantly accelerate the licensing process of the
Yucca Mountain underground spent-fuel repository. It would be worth exploring
whether the delivery rate for spent-fuel could be increased above the current
design rate of 3000 tons per year. However, there are so many political uncertainties associated with the transport of spent fuel to Yucca Mountain and somany technical issues that still have to be decided in its design and licensing
process that speculation about possible acceleration should not be used as an
excuse to ignore the relatively straightforward interim on-site storage option
recommended in our paper.