Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Spent Fuel Moved to Another Site?

Author Topic: Spent Fuel Moved to Another Site?  (Read 9942 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline UncaBuffalo

  • Mostly Retired
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Karma: 4598
  • "How Many Things I Have No Need Of" - Socrates
Spent Fuel Moved to Another Site?
« on: Dec 20, 2008, 12:52 »
I thought I remembered hearing that one of the defunct plants got permission to send their fuel offsite (to another plant's spent fuel pool, or...?) instead of putting it in dry cask storage.  I drew a blank googling it.  Does anyone know of something like that happening?  (Seems like it was 15 or 20 years ago, but...)




(I know Fort St. Vrain wanted to send their fuel to INL, but that got shot down.  Maybe that's what I'm thinking of...)
« Last Edit: Dec 20, 2008, 12:57 by UncaBuffalo »
We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner! I can’t think what anybody sees in them.      - B. Baggins

Offline tr

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
  • Karma: 218
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Spent Fuel Moved to Another Site?
« Reply #1 on: Dec 20, 2008, 05:32 »
The (slightly) spent fuel from Shoreham supposedly ended being bought by Susquehanna.

Some plant in the east (maybe Harris) received spent fuel from one of the companies other plants.

Offline UncaBuffalo

  • Mostly Retired
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Karma: 4598
  • "How Many Things I Have No Need Of" - Socrates
Re: Spent Fuel Moved to Another Site?
« Reply #2 on: Dec 20, 2008, 08:09 »
The (slightly) spent fuel from Shoreham supposedly ended being bought by Susquehanna.

Thanks for that lead.  Further googling revealed this:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D91E3CF936A2575AC0A965958260

(Seems the fuel is headed to Limerick...when/if Shoreham can jump through the right hoops...)
We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner! I can’t think what anybody sees in them.      - B. Baggins

Offline UncaBuffalo

  • Mostly Retired
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Karma: 4598
  • "How Many Things I Have No Need Of" - Socrates
Re: Spent Fuel Moved to Another Site?
« Reply #3 on: Dec 20, 2008, 08:40 »
Some plant in the east (maybe Harris) received spent fuel from one of the companies other plants.

Maybe Harris is the one I was thinking of...you were dead-on about them taking fuel from the other CP&L plants:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2000/00-185.html



Thanks tr
« Last Edit: Dec 20, 2008, 10:37 by UncaBuffalo »
We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner! I can’t think what anybody sees in them.      - B. Baggins

Offline tr

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
  • Karma: 218
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Spent Fuel Moved to Another Site?
« Reply #4 on: Jul 18, 2009, 09:35 »
Some spent fuel from SONGS 1 is at the GE fuel recycling plant in Morris IL.  Spent fuel from SONGS 1 was also shipped to both SONGS 2 and SONGS 3.

Offline MeterSwangin

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 152
  • Karma: -77
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody get decon!
Re: Spent Fuel Moved to Another Site?
« Reply #5 on: Jul 19, 2009, 06:37 »
SONGS Unit 1 fuel formerly stored at Units 2/3 is located in dry fuel canisters on the Unit 1 property.

xynergy

  • Guest
Re: Spent Fuel Moved to Another Site?
« Reply #6 on: Jul 20, 2009, 07:06 »
Really close on the responses, but no cigar.

Shoreham fuel (ever so slightly 'burned') went to Limerick for free.  It was cheaper than storing it dry.  We also looked as sending it to AREVA for reprocesssing and even had costs for doing so.  Clinton's DOE buddies stopped us dead in our tracks.  Instead there were a number of rail shipments through NYC to Limerick.

SONGS 1 trans-shipped fuel on site using IF-300 casks to Units 2 and 3.  Eventually they ran out of storage space and went dry.

Harris was designed for four (4) units with a common 'cross-shaped' fuel pool (the pools could be inter-connected).  Since only one (1) unit was built Harris technically had four times as much storage space as needed.  Robinson was one of the first ISFSI demo plants along with Surry (using metal cask storage).  CP&L owned a IF-300 cask and bought a second with the idea of trans-shipping fuel to Harris from both Brunswick and Robinson.  They made some shipments but the problem is that it is very cost prohibitive using the IF-300 cask since its capacity is so small.  They have gone to dry storage at Robinson and will probably do the same at Brunswick.

Millstone also looked into to trans-shipment from Unit 2 to Unit 3.  It was approved by the ACRS, but it was also about the time that Millstone 1 'mis-placed' a couple of spent fuel rods so it never occurred.  Instead they went dry.

Indian Point is currently looking into trans-shipment between Unit 2 and Unit 3, but only because they don't have crane capacity.  They would use a smaller cask to trans-ship the fuel, but then use the large storage casks to take it out and store it dry on site.

When you run all of the numbers, the only way to go is dry fuel storage, but only if you select the correct technology.  It is sort of like the ol' Midas muffler commercials - you can pay me now or really pay me a heck of a lot more later.




Offline HydroDave63

  • Retired
  • *
  • Posts: 6295
  • Karma: 6629
Re: Spent Fuel Moved to Another Site?
« Reply #7 on: Jul 20, 2009, 07:48 »
SONGS 1 trans-shipped fuel on site using IF-300 casks to Units 2 and 3.  Eventually they ran out of storage space and went dry.

Dry storage was part of the decommissioning plan that SCE and the CPUC worked out in the early 90s.

You might want to check where your cigars have been....

Offline fueldryer

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 270
  • Karma: 981
  • Gender: Male
  • Call Before You Dig !
Re: Spent Fuel Moved to Another Site?
« Reply #8 on: Jul 20, 2009, 08:11 »
[/b]



The fuel went by barge around the eastern tip of Long Island, there were no rail shipments through New York City,.......

I was there, you are a poser,...

Get off my forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Nice Flag! Love it! + karma everyday forever..
« Last Edit: Jul 20, 2009, 08:11 by fueldryer »
Call Before You Dig!

IPREGEN

  • Guest
Re: Spent Fuel Moved to Another Site?
« Reply #9 on: Jul 21, 2009, 07:05 »


Shoreham fuel (ever so slightly 'burned') went to Limerick for free.  It was cheaper than storing it dry. 



You have to quit making this stuff up. Long Island Lighting Company, LILCO, paid 50 million to Philadelphia Electric for Limerick to get the fuel. Long Island wanted no fuel at all on the property.

Offline spentfuel

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Karma: 107
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Spent Fuel Moved to Another Site?
« Reply #10 on: Jul 21, 2009, 12:50 »
Duke did a spent fuel transfer from Oconee to McGuire back in the early 80's

From what I recall it was just as McGuire was going hot and ONS was out of space with the plans for Dry cask storage still on the drawing board.

Think it was around 300 assemblies involved

maybe that what you recall UNCB

sf

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2024 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?