-"
,
cm
-
*.
.
.
.
.
.
due
PO
TOFT
ORNLP
2161

A
me
.
r
.
EEEFE E RE
11
||1:25 114 116
-
-
--
"
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS -1963
is
RA
ORNU-P
2161
Cont_660532_1
CESET PRICES
JUN 27 1966
ORNL - AEC - OFFICIAL
HC $ 7.00; MN_50
ORNL - AEC - OFFICIAL
SHIPPING..COST COMPARISONS FOR LEAD-, STEEL-, AND
URANIUM-SHIELDED CASKS*
, STEI-, AND MASTER


W
RELEASED FOR ANNOUNCEMENT
1.
L. B. Shappert
R. Salmon
IN NUCLEAR SCIENCE ABSTRACTS
.
.
.L
The cost of shipping spent fuel from a riuclear power reactor to a
Iuel processing plant, while not a large fraction of the total fuel
cycle cost, is significant enough to merit continuing study. Shipping
costs will become increasingly important as the size of the power re-
actor industry grows, because reductions in chemical processing and
fabrication costs will tend to focus greater attention on shipping
cost and inventory charges associated with shipping schedules.
WWW
This study, which limits the empty cask weight to around 25 tons,
deals mainly with a cost comparison among lead-, steel-, and uranium-
that can be shipped by motor freight, Economics of the
transportation of these casks are a function of handling, transportation,
insurance, and amortization costs. These costs and how they are affected
by cask weight, round-trip time, etc., are discussed.
".
.
he
.
Most previous studies on fuel shipping costs have been based on a
fixed payload; thus, when different shielding materials are compared,
the casks will vary considerably in size, shape, and particularly
weight. This requires additional economic ground rules, since some
containers may be shipped in less-than-carload (LCL) quantities and
sone in carload (CL) quantities. Some may be capable of being shipped
by truck, while others must be shipped by rail. In each case, the
freight rates will vary, even though the distance is the same.
To eliminate some of these problems, the basis selected for this
study was to set a weight limit on the cask and allow the payload to
vary. Accordingly, any error in choosing a "correct" shipping cost
will be the same in all cases and be nullified in comparisons. A
"natural" weight limitation of 25 tons was first selected for all casks,
and the costs under these conditions were examined. Additional compar-
isons were made.
It is logical that the shielding material which permits the greatest
ratio of fuel weight to cask weight may show an economic advantage, even
diguu
- vai
*Research sponsored by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission under
contract with the Union Carbide Corporation.
ORNL - AEC - OFFICIAL
vi
though the shielding material itself may be relatively expensive. Such
a conclusion was borne out by this study, which indicated that uranium-
shielded containers hold considerable economic promise for casks designed
for truck transport. .
ORNL:- AEC - OFFICIAL
The basis for comparing shielding materials is the total cost of
shipping the spent fuel from a reactor to a site some distance away and
then returning the empty cask. The total shipping cost is considered
he sum of four separate charges : handling, freight, insurance,
and cask amortization, each on a per-kilogram-of-reference-material
basis. The handling and freight charges (CH and CF) are calculated as
follows, assuming a handling cost of $500 per round trip:
$500/round trip
freight charges/round trip
°H kg reference material/trip , and CF "Te
kg reference material/trip.
The insurance charges cover loss of, or damage to, the cask and
fuel during shipment. The empty cask is insured on the return trip.
taken as 0.05% of the value of the material shipped each
way. The charge per kilogram, Cry is computed as follows:
0.0005
vq ako reference materiaitrio
fuel value + 2(cask value)
0.0005
= kg reference material trio | (kg reference matérial/trip)($150/ks)
+ (2)(cask cost/1b)(cask weight)
The factor 2 in the brackets Accounts for the fact that the cask is
insured both ways. The fuel value of $150 per kilogram was arbitrarily
chosen for this study.
The casks are assumed to be bought by the shipper and amortized at
a rate of 15% per year. For convenience in estimating, the cost of the
cask is expressed in dollars per pound. The amortization charges are
computed on an annual basis and divided by the number of kilograms of
reference material shipped per year, keeping the cost units compatible
with the other items. The amortization charges C therefore may be
determined as follows:
CA = (0.15/yr )(no. of casks) (cask cost/1b)(cask weight, 1b)/(kg material/yr).
Computer code NORA was used to obtain shipping costs for a hypothet-
ical power reactor. Input data relating to this. reactor and to the
problem are listed in Table 1.
LEGAL NOTICE
Taio roport was prepared as an account of Government sponsored work. Neither the Valted
Statas, aor the Commission, nor any person nouing on behall of the Commission:
A. Makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the Acou-
racy, completeness, or usefulness of the Information contained in the report, or that the us
of any information, apparatus, method, or procons disclosed in the report may not laorlag
privately owned rightoj or
B. Assumos day ilabiliuos with up to the un of, or for damage resulting from the
use of any information, apparatus, method, or proces, drolond in the report.
As und in the above, porno notting on behalf of the Commission" includes any om.
ploys or contractor of the Commission, or employs of non contractor, to the extent that
ou a omployoe or contractor of the Commission, or employs of noh contractor poparu.,
disseminator, or provides 1000m to, any laformatiou pursuant to his omploymmat or contriot
with the commission, or his employment with such contractor.
ORNL - AEC - OFFICIAI
Table 1. Code Input Data
ORNL - AEC - OFFICIAL
1,500
20,000
20
120
8.0
7.8
200
87.3
15
Reactor power, thermal Mw
Burnup, Mwd/metric ton reference material
Specific power, Mw/metric ton reference
material
Cooling time, days
Element length, overali, ft
Element length, active, ft
Element weight, 1b/ft
Kg reference material per ft3 of cavity
Cask annual fixed charge, %
Outer shell thickness, in.
Inner shell thickness, in.
Density, shell, lb/fto
Allowable dose, mr/hr at 3 m
Handling cost per round trip, $
Days per round trip
Freight, empty, $/10
Freight, loaded, $/1b
Insurance rate, fraction of value
Fuel value, $/lb reference material
Reactor load factor, fractional
1.00
0.50
490
10
500
16
0.0181
0.0193
0.0005
150
0.80
RESULTS
General Findings
The fuel density used represents & hypothetical fuel element
containing 87.3 kg of reference material per cubic foot of cavity
volume. If uranium or uranium oxide is considered the reference
material, the element would be characteristic of a Yankee-type fuel
element. Table 2 shows the comparative payload capacities of lead.,
steel-, and uranium-shielded casks of varicus sizes for this fuel,
as determined by the code. An Lteresting result shown by this table
18 that for a given cask weight, changing the shielding material may
change the payload significantly. For example, a 25-ton (49,500 lb)
ORNL-AEC-OFFICIAL
.
.
.
......
..
............
.
VIDIO-
V-INYO
IVIDIJO-DV-
ca
n
o --.--.
-
...
-
----..
Table 2. Comparative Capacities of Lead-, Steel-, and Uranium-Shielded Shipping Casks
Steel
. Lead
Uranium
2018
U
Inside
Diameter
(in.)
Empty
Weight
(16)
Shiela
Taickness
(in.)
Empty
Weight
(16)
Shield
Thickness
(in.)
Empty
Weight
(16)
• Shield
-- Thickness
(in.)
-23
6.01
11.85
25.1 x 103
200
7.07
7.25
7.38
7.49
12.25
12.40
12.46
12.70
12.79
2:0.4 x 100
45.3
49.1
52.4
57.0
60.7
65.0
68.9
72.8
7.58
233
392
512
578
మీ
953
1152
1352
1568
1600
2048
2312
2592
2888
8.84
10.25
11.67
13.08
14.49
15.91
17.32
18.74
20.15
21.56
22.98
24.39
3.63
3.75
3.81
3.88
3.93
3.97
4.02
4.05
12.95
15.2 x 103
18.7
21.1
23.5.
25.9
28.4
30.9
33.4
36.0
38.7
4.09.
77.1
28.3
31.4
34.5
37.5
40.4
43.6
46.7
49.8
53.0
56.2
59.5
62.8
66.1
69.5
72.9
76.3
79.8
7.64
7.73
7.78
7.85
7.91
7.95
8.01
8.05
8.10
81.1
41.3
85.1
13.05
13.12
13.25
13.32
13.39
. 13.49
13.55
13.63
13.69
13.75
13.82
13.88
13.93
13.99
14.04
25.81
4.12
4.15
4.18
4.21
4.24
4.26
4.29
4.31
4.33
8.14
44.0
46.7
49.5
52.3
55.1
58.8
60.9
89.5
93.6
97.9
102.2
106.5
110.9
115.3.
119.7
124.3
128.8
3200
3528
27.22
28.63
30.05
31.46
32.88
34.29
35.70
8.28
8.22
8.26
8.29
8.33
3872
4232
4608
63.9
83.3
86.9
4.35
4.37
8.37
66.8
69.9
72.9
90.5
94.1
5000
4.39
4.41
8.40
Triwison-wsi - sivu
ORNL - AEC - OFFICIAL
uranium-shielded cask can carry 23.12 kg of uranium, whereas only half
this amount, 1152 kg, can be carried in a 25-ton lead-shielded cask.
or a steel cask, the payload is reduced to 288 kg of uranium, or one-
eighth the capacity of the uranium-shielded cask.
The greater carrying capacity of the uranium cask makes it attractiv
provided that the price of the cask is not excessive. In general, steel
casks cost about 500/1b, lead casks about $1.00/1b, and uranium casks
about $5.00/1b; this latter cost is less well-established than the
others and will depend on the method of fabrication as well as on, the
price charged by the Atomic Energy Commission for the depleted uranium.
At present, the published price of depleted uranium of unspecified
isotopic assay, as UF 6, is $1.13 per pound of uranium.
To obtain some indication of the possible competitiveness of uranium
casks under specified conditions, shipping costs were calculated for
various uranium-cask prices. These were compared with corresponding
shipping costs for lead and steel casks, using lead at $1.00/lb and
steel at 50¢/16. By this procedure, it was possible to calculate the
price at which uranium casks are competitive with lead or steel.
Table 3 shows the shipping costs calculated as indicated above, for
& cask weight of about 25 tons. The significant points shown in this
table are the shipping costs for the three shielding materials, the cask
load, and the theoretical minimum number of casks. The theoretical
minimum number of casks is defined as the rate of discharge of uranium
(kg yr) divided by the number of kilograms of uranium per year that could
be handled by one cask. This number is not required to be an integer;
ühe actual number of casks is the next greater integer. The cask-
utilization factor is defined as the ratio of these numbers. The results
shown are based on a round-trip time of 16 days. Shipping costs are :
shown for a range of cask prices, except for lead, which was fixed at
$1.00/1b. Steel, at 50
50¢/lb, gives a shipping cost of $9.00 per kilogram
of uranium; 'this is almost four times the shipping cost for the lead
cask and stems from the fact that the payload for the steel cask is only
about one-fourth that of the lead cask. Increasing steel to $1.00/1b
makes little difference, giving a shipping cost of $9.77 per id logram
of uranium.
Uranium, at $4.00/1b, gives about the same shipping cost as lead.
At $22.10/1b, it gives the same cost as steel.
Effect of Round-Trip Time
Suppose now that the round-trip time for the 2000-mile round trip
was reduced from 16 to 8 days. This would allow each cask to make
twice as many trips per year and would reduce the theoretical number
of casks required by half. Since, however, for lead and uranium only
one cask is required to start with, the total shipping costs will re-
main unchanged. For the steel cask, the theoretical minimum number of
casks would be 1.665, and thus only two would be required. This would
-vii- iiij
L - AEC - OFFICIAL
Table 3. Total Shipping Cost of 25-ton Casks
..ORNL - AEC - OFFICIAL
Steel
49,100
Lead
49,800
Uranium
49,500
Shielä material
Cask weight, lb
Theoretical minimum
number of casks
Actual number of casks
Cask utilization factor, %
Cask load, kg
Cask cost, $/10
3.33 3.33
4
4
83.4 · 83.4
288 288
0.50 1.00
0.83
1
83
1152
1.00
0.41
1
41
2312
4.00
0.4.1
1
42
2312
22.10
Handling, $/kg uranium
Freight
Insurance
Amortization
Total, $/kg uranium
1.71
6.43
0.16
0.67
9.00
9.00
1.74
6.43
0.25
1.35
9.77
0.43
1.63
0.12
0.34
2.52
0.21
0.81
0.16
1.36
2.54
0.21
0.81
0.46
7.52
9.00
cut the amortization cost CA in half. From Table 3 the total charges
incurred by reducing the shipping time by half would be $9.00 - 1/2(0.67)
= $8.66, for a steel cask costing $0.50/10. This cost is still high
compared with those l'or the lead and uranium casks. .
It is apparent from this analysis that, for a particular cask of
given capacity, shipping costs are lowest when the casks are used 100%
of the time. A related fact is that it costs no more on a per-kilogram
basis to keep two casks operating 100% of the time than to keep one
cask operating 100% of the time. Table 4 shows the calculated costs
if a steel or uranium cask is kept in operation almost full time.
Table 4 indicates that at high utilization factors, uranium casks
can be attractive, even if the cask cost per pound is quite high. For
the reactor conditions specified, the cost can be $9.30/1b and still
remain economically competitive with a lead cask. The inefficiency of
the lead cask does not cost a lot in this case; if the lead cask (or
casks) were used 100% of the time, the total charges would still be
$2.46 per kilogram of reference material, which corre
ence material, which corresponds to a uranium
cask cost of $8.50/1b at 100% utilization.
ORN! - AEC - OFFICIAL
..
.
.
.
.
Table 4. Total Shipping Cost of 25-ton Casks at 100% Utilization
ORNL.- AEC - OFFICIAL
Steel
49,100
Lead
49,800
Uranium
49,500
SI
7.90
7.90
1.00
Shield material
Cask weight, lb
Theoretical minimum number
of casks
Actual number of casks
Cask utilization factor, %
Cask load, kg
Cask cost, $/10
2.02
3
8
8
67
99
288
0.50
99
288
1.00
1.00
1
100
2312
8.50
1152
1.00
100
2312
9.30
Handling, $/kg uranium
Freight
Insurance
Amortization
Total, $/kg uranium
1.74
6.43
0.16
0.57
8.90
1.74
6.43
0.25
1.14
9.56
0.43
1.63
0.12
0.42
2.60
0.21
0.31
0.26
1.19
.47
0.21
0.81
0.28
1.30
2.60
2
Lower Weight Limits
Suppose now that road limitations restricted the cask weight to
around 40,000 lb.
The reduction in allowable cask weight magnified the disadvantage
of casks built from less dense material due to their restricted payloads;
the results show that eight steel casks would be required for the fuel
described in Table 1, as compared to 2 lead casks and still only one
uranium cask.
Cask Rental
The study also pointed out the fact that cask rental is almost
equivalent to utilizing a cask 100% of the time. If, therefore, a
cask was needed only occasionally, it would be much cheaper to rent
rather than to buy one.
ORNL - AEC - OFFICIAL
CONCLUSIONS
ORNL - AEC - OFFICIAL
Based on the assumptions and results presented in this paper, it
aprears that there can be an economic advantage to a uranium cask if
the cost of the fabricated uranium can be kept in the range of $4.00
to $9.00 per pound. These costs will depend heavily on uranium
fabrication techniques since the present price for uranium is $1.
as UF6This is about 8 times greater than the price of lead (around
15€/1b). Steel casks appear to offer little economic
In addition, costs can be materially reduced if the cask can be
utilized close to 100% of the time. If this cannot be done, consideration
should be given to cask rental.
REFERENCES
1.
L. B. Shappert and Royes Salmon, Shipping Cost Comparisons for
Lead, Steel-, and Uranium-Shielded Casks, ORNL-3918 (March 1966).
ORNL - AEC - OFFICIAL
be.
.
.YE
*
LIDL,
S.C
.
2.
SAU
RM
.
.
LE
FURATURY
4
92
13
-
Yeti
Ep
.IT Lt
120
.22

.
.
11
T
END
DATE FILMED
7 / 29 /66
sti**
.
.
L
mare
.net
.
.
1
-
.
-...
---
-
..
-
.
4
AA
.
..