DOE OSTI2018
Most of the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in dry storage in the United States is safely and securely stored in dual-purpose (i.e., storage and transportation) canisters [1]. However, some of the SNF is stored in storage-only (i.e., non-transportable) packages, or packages that may become nonconforming for continued storage or transportation for a variety of reasons. Currently, the capability to remediate dry storage systems (DSSs) for SNF that are not transportable or that need to be repaired to maintain confinement boundary integrity during storage service does not exist without on-site access to a spent fuel pool. Hence, there is a potential future need for a mobile facility with remediation capabilities that can be used at multiple storage installations. These capabilities would permit needed repairs to an existing DSS to support continued storage or for the dry transfer of fuel to a new conveyance suitable for transport, if necessary. This is a technical paper that does not take into account the contractual limitations under the Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste (Standard Contract) (10 CFR Part 961). Under the provisions of the Standard Contract, DOE does not consider spent nuclear fuel in canisters to be an acceptable waste form, absent a mutually agreed to contract amendment. To the extent discussions or recommendations in this paper conflict with the provisions of the Standard Contract, the Standard Contract provisions prevail. A novel design concept for a Mobile Examination and Remediation Facility (MERF) is proposed with functions and capabilities to remediate a DSS. The proposed MERF would be a multi-purpose facility, remotely operated and computer-controlled with semi-automated equipment to allow trained operators to safely perform remediation activities while keeping worker radiation dose as low as reasonably achievable. It would include a shielded rotating platform with support towers and would use commercial off- the-shelf examination and repair equipment. A slip ring arrangement underneath the rotating platform would allow for the power supply without impeding the continuous rotation and would simplify cable management. The support towers would be mounted on the rotating platform, and each tower would have vertical and horizontal positioning capability for axial and radial tool location. The rotating platform would be attached to the main MERF structure. Capabilities would include visual, surface, and volumetric examinations to fully characterize physical conditions on canister surface before and after a repair; repair techniques, e.g., laser beam welding, friction stir welding, or cold spray, to perform needed remediation activities; and associated equipment for surface preparation such as cutting and grinding equipment. The proposed design would be simple, modular, robust, economically viable, and easily transportable and would have a small footprint. The modular design would present several advantages including compatibility with a variety of different DSSs, on-site assembly, and transportability; it also would be built in interchangeable sections to facilitate decontamination. Further, shielding would be supplemented through interface with the existing transfer cask and storage overpack. Robustness and canister stability would be achieved using pneumatic holders and steel support structures designed with vibration absorbers to reduce impacts and/or a 'pendulum' effect during a seismic event. Thus, the proposed MERF would be designed to: (i) minimize handling of an affected DSS to the extent practicable, (ii) provide radiation shielding and minimize dose to operators and the public during remediation activities, and (iii) enable examination, repair, and repackaging. This paper describes the proposed MERF design concept and capabilities, main components, equipment, different modes of operation, and operating procedures. Structural and safety assessments would need to be performed before final design, licensing, and deployment. The MERF is evaluated with respect to regulatory impact (first of a kind, prior experience), operational impact (safety, security, staffing, ongoing operations, constraints), worker dose (low, medium, high), cost (low, medium, high), schedule (duration, time sequence), and technology readiness level. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗