Spent Reactor Fuel Risk Greater in U.S. Than Japan

[DJ@Retired]

delicious propaganda. More VY news hatred. Ambiguous article doesn't take into account the numerous design features built in to protect the pools, etc etc. Yes, when we under go a 9 richter scale earthquake and massive tsunami with substantial after shocks at vermont yankee, we have reason for concern. 

DJ, how does transfering to caskets mitigate the risk?

I don't think it mitigate any risk even if the spent fuel went to Yucca Flats however I do believe still to this day the spent fuel pools are at greater risk. Here a canned "borrowed" answer, The cost of on-site dry-cask storage for an additional 35,000 tons of older spent fuel is estimated at $3.5–7 billion dollars or 0.03–0.06 cents per kilowatt-hour generated from that fuel. Later cost savings could offset some of this cost when the fuel is shipped off site.

The transfer to dry storage could be accomplished within a decade. The removal of the older fuel would reduce the average inventory of 137Cs in the pools by about a factor of four, bringing it down to about twice that in a reactor core. It would also make possible 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 large-scale airflow through the buildings housing the pools, natural convection air cooling of this spent fuel should be possible if airflow has not been blocked by collapse of the building or other cause.

[xynergy]

Marrissm,

I forgot the single word 'planned' and that is the result of my negative karma - plain and simple.


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 PLANNED rail shipments through NYC to Limerick.


All options were on the table whihc were thorougly evaluated.  I was not involved with the final decision, and had left the evaluation group.  Excuse me - my mistake.

I stand by my statements - leave the technical issues to the engineers (who also fully understand the radiological impacts and requirements), and the HP issues to the HPs.

Let the negative comments begin.

[xynergy]

Did not go to Limerick for free,...

Millions were paid for Limerick to take the fuel, and millions were made by Limerick to take the fuel,....

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/audits/9596/95d38.pdf

Decommissioning costs are reported to be $181.5 million. Other costs LIPA
and LILCO associated with the closure, transferring and decommissioning of
this project total about $965 million, including $115 million to dispose of
contaminated fuel and $418 million for taxes and payments in lieu of taxes
(PILOTs). LIPA officials reported that they sold about $873,000 in assets
through April 1995. Thereafter, they hired a contractor to conduct the
liquidation of the plant's remaining salvageable equipment in August 1995.

By the way were the decommisisoning contractor Burak & Manny?  You have twisted the words - Limerick didn't pay anything - they in essence got 'free' fuel.  Considering that a 'new' fuel assembly costs between $750K - $1M each  I would say that Limerick got a very good deal.  Give yourself some bad karma points.

Quote from: xynergy on Today at 13:33
Marrissm,

.....It was cheaper than storing it dry......



No, the licensing hoops for dry cask storage in the early nineties were still in the pathfinder phase, cask design and manufacture can take years and are part of that licensing process, and Shoreham was on a schedule, a very definitive schedule. Perhaps just as important, dry cask storage was not politically palatable to either LIPA or the Cuomo administration.

Not correct.  I was directly involved with 1 of the 2 oriignal dry fuel storage projects at Robinson (NUHOMS) in 1987.  The other was at Surry.  By the time Shoreham came around the licensing for Part 72 installations (i.e., ISFSI) was a non-issue.  Also cask design and manufacture DO NOT TAKE YEARS.  I know first hand since I have worked directly for NUTECH Engineers (NUHOMS design) and NAC.  I am also familar with the BNFL (Westinghouse) and HOLTEC designs as well as many others.  Again, give yourself some bad karma points.

Quote from: xynergy on Today at 13:33
Marrissm,
 

...We also looked as sending it to AREVA for reprocesssing and even had costs for doing so.....




I have no rebuttal to that one other than the non-proliferation treaties that almost all senior nukeworkers are well cognizant of were a non-starter for sending American made GE fuel to France for reprocessing.

Wrong again.  It is obvious that you do not fully understand the treaties and regulations that the US has with regard to spent nuclear fuel.  It was perfectly correct to ship the spent fuel to France as long as the 'residual' material was returned to the US.  When the material was returned is another issue.  This is the same process that Japan and the UK follow as well as other countries that are treaty signees.  USDOE stopped the discussions since they were more worried that an issue regarding Yucca would surface and that the utilities would try to recover some of the Yucca costs.  Again, award yourself some more negative karma points.  Also don't confuse a senior 'nuclear worker' with a Senior HP, they are not the same.


Quote from: xynergy on Today at 13:33
Marrissm,

....Clinton's DOE buddies stopped us dead in our tracks....



No,....Claire Shulman and a pile on of NYC beeps and politicos stopped spent fuel rail shipments through NYC. The CRB's had already gone through NYC with no fuss, mostly because the beeps and politicos were not sensitive to the term "CRB's", but the term "spent nuclear fuel" got their attention and the attention of those NYC coffee house folks sitting around trying to read at least one book every 20 years (     ),...

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/22/nyregion/nuclear-fuel-to-be-moved-through-populous-areas.html


Again, taken out of context.  DOE stopped the recycling to AREVA NOT the shipments through NYC.  Again more negative karma points.


Quote from: xynergy on Today at 13:33

I forgot the single word 'planned' and that is the result of my negative karma - plain and simple.



You forgot a lot more than the single word planned, if you had been at Shoreham for the DnD you and I could reminisce about how dam good the people who performed that DnD were and how adroitly they were able to change directions and make the "impossible" happen in a New York minute. If they were not the single greatest collection of licensing engineers and specialists ever brought together they were as good as they get and equal to the best anywhere anytime.

Again award yourself even more negative karma points - I NEVER said I was at Shoreham for the D&D.  I performed spent fuel management studies.  And I do know a lot of the folks from Shoreham D&D  - Burak, Keto, etc since they all went to Millsrtone 1 where I had responsibility for removing the fuel from the SFP.

I think that we now have the same negative karma rating of -1.

[Bigchris]

Dear Xynergy.

Please allow me to speak briefly concerning your post on this thread.

When you suggested that you, "might as well just continue down the (negative karma) path", I was moved to implore you to reject that thought and to chose an alternate one.

You are at a turning point, if you will, a crossroad: You can keep going in the negative dark side karma direction or you can choose to move forward in a positive direction.
To support my position I would ask that you consider several things that have occurred during this thread:
1. You posted, "Since I have negative karma, I might as well just continue down the path...I just love it when 'all knowing' HPs spout their expertise when it comes to a very complicated and technical issue such as the management of spent nuclear fuel."
2. That comment invoked the following response from Marssim, "You have negative karma 'cause your an ass, not because you do not know what you are talking about."

IMHO you should turn from the negative karma path, repudiate it completely, and commit yourself to sharing your experience with the members of this forum in a (just slightly) more positive way. If you choose to do this I suspect your involvement here will increase. This will greatly benefit me and others who look to this forum not only for technical information but for examples of how professionals in the nuclear field communicate when they have a difference of opinion.

In the near future you could have a strong positive karma rating and enjoy the respect of this sites membership as a result of your commitment to sharing your knowledge in a positive way. I hope you don't mind me saying so, but I believe you have an important position to fill here at Nukeworker. By that I mean that there is a leadership role that you are uniquely qualified to fill.

However, you seem to be a little quick to 'dish out the spanking', or so it seems to me from this comment, "I just love it when 'all knowing' HPs spout their expertise when it comes to a very complicated and technical issue such as the management of spent nuclear fuel". I may be hasty in saying that, but I don't see yet where that tone was appropriate.

To be clear, what I am suggesting is that if someone has posted what you believe to be information that could be improved upon, you point it out in a more diplomatic way, one that exemplifies the respect that we must have for the problem solving process.

I say this because I believe that if the nuclear power industry is to continue to grow, we must be continuously dedicated to solving difficult Human Performance problems, rather than perhaps contributing to them with a few unnecessary words, such as, "I just love it when 'all knowing' HPs spout their expertise..."

I gave you karma, bringing you from 0 to +1, because I am hoping that it will help illustrate a point regarding your participation in this forum, and I believe it will jumpstart the new upward trend in your karma.

Thanks for listening to my thirty-five cents worth. I will as they say step off my soapbox now.

Bigchris

[Chimera]

I stand in awe of Bigchris - no sarcasm intended whatsoever.  Well put and well said.

[Higgs]

Agreed. He is going to be an asset and I look forward to the outcome of his most well spoken advice.

[RAD-GHOST]

Dear Xynergy.

You are at a turning point, if you will, a crossroad: You can keep going in the negative dark side karma direction or you can choose to move forward in a positive direction.

Thanks for listening to my thirty-five cents worth. I will as they say step off my soapbox now.

Bigchris

Bigchris,

Well written....

What kind of odds are you giving on the + side............

RG!

[Bigchris]

What kind of odds are you giving on the + side............

RAD-GHOST,
The odds of Xynergy being a strong positive poster has more, I would suggest, to do with the behavior that you and I, and the rest of the Nukeworker.Com community choose to exhibit than anything that can be postulated from his post so far.

However, the odds are pretty good that Xynergy will choose the positive karma route; almost all of his posts are positive and helpful.  It looks like he had merely addressed his negative karma position, which by the way I don't see in his profile, by taking a mild swipe at HP's when he wrote,  "I just love it when 'all knowing' HPs spout their expertise when it comes to a very complicated and technical issue such as the management of spent nuclear fuel."

In the exchange between Marssim and Xynergy they each seemed to be holding their own and I don't fault anyone for the manly firmness they showed each other during the debate.

I didn't mean to fault him, other than perhaps for the minor playful swing Xynergy took at HP's, and I apologize if that is not clear.

My letter to him was motivated more by my desire to address the importance of healthy debate among this boards participants than it was by anything he did. The issue I was trying to touch upon is that the way we communicate when we challenge one-another today is important because it will have an effect on the greater nuclear community tomorrow, when we may be trying to discuss something of significant importance.

I seem to remember reading that Sun Tzu said that the greatest general is not credited with winning any battles but rather puts himself in a better position, through intelligence and foresight, than that which exists in any battle (even a victorious one). To put this another way, the greatest (for example-nuclear team) is not credited with handling any emergencies well because they had taking care of problems while they were still small and thus avoided having then grow into emergencies.

So... the standards we develop and use today contribute to the environment we are subjected to tomorrow. As much as we refrain from unnecessarily offending each other as we work towards problem resolution, we will have improved the odds that we will be able to use conservative decision making successfully when we need to.

At that future time, we may wish that our safety culture had been more fully matured or that we had developed a greater skill-set when it came to the art of persuasion. It will probably be impossible to go back and change what we have or have not done, so I would suggest we tackle the mountainous problems of the future now while they are still, relatively speaking, molehills. Our difficulties in the future will be that much greater if we don't work on improving the models and processes we use when we have discussions today.

For example, if seldom is heard a disparaging word, then it is more likely that your peers will recognize that the person using them may not have a sound basis for his/her position but rather has moved away from the principles we are entrusted to maintain, into an area that can not be supported by logic but perhaps can only be achieved through intimidation.

Hopefully I have been able to explain what this, (the way we communicate now), has to do with that, (the strength of our safety cultures in the future).

Bigchris

[RAD-GHOST]

Bigchris,

The Scorpion and the Frog is a fable about a scorpion asking a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it stung, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown. The frog agrees and the scorpion stings the frog during the crossing, dooming them both. When asked why, the scorpion points out that this is its nature. The fable is used to illustrate the position that the behaviour of some creatures is irrepressible, no matter how they are treated and no matter what the consequences.

I believe that one is from the 500 B.C. era also......

Human Performance at it's best...RG!

[xynergy]

Here's a bit of Shoreham trivia any engineer should be able to remember for something as outstanding as shipping spent fuel in casks around the island and across the ocean to Eddystone;

What model cask(s) was used?

How many cask shipments with fuel in the cask were made?

What were the tug's names?

How many tugs per barge?

What were the barges numbers?

I know 'cause I was there, been there, done that,....

(Are we off topic yet? , prob'ly not as safe transport of spent fuel utilizing various means of transport is on topic)

Marssim,

These are NOT questions for an engineer, these are questions for an HP, waste shipper, or whatever.

If you were there, then you should know the answers to these questions.  These are REAL engineering questions:

1)  What regulation authorized the shipment of the fuel to Limerick?

2)  To what regulation were the transport casks licensed?

3)  What was the cask license allowable kWt of the 'hottest' assembly?

4) What was the allowable total kWt of each cask type?

5)  What entity owned the casks?

I know because I am familiar with what really counts when it comes to shipping spent nuclear fuel.

[xynergy]

Dear Xynergy.

Please allow me to speak briefly concerning your post on this thread.

When you suggested that you, "might as well just continue down the (negative karma) path", I was moved to implore you to reject that thought and to chose an alternate one.

You are at a turning point, if you will, a crossroad: You can keep going in the negative dark side karma direction or you can choose to move forward in a positive direction.
To support my position I would ask that you consider several things that have occurred during this thread:
1. You posted, "Since I have negative karma, I might as well just continue down the path...I just love it when 'all knowing' HPs spout their expertise when it comes to a very complicated and technical issue such as the management of spent nuclear fuel."
2. That comment invoked the following response from Marssim, "You have negative karma 'cause your an ass, not because you do not know what you are talking about."

IMHO you should turn from the negative karma path, repudiate it completely, and commit yourself to sharing your experience with the members of this forum in a (just slightly) more positive way. If you choose to do this I suspect your involvement here will increase. This will greatly benefit me and others who look to this forum not only for technical information but for examples of how professionals in the nuclear field communicate when they have a difference of opinion.

In the near future you could have a strong positive karma rating and enjoy the respect of this sites membership as a result of your commitment to sharing your knowledge in a positive way. I hope you don't mind me saying so, but I believe you have an important position to fill here at Nukeworker. By that I mean that there is a leadership role that you are uniquely qualified to fill.

However, you seem to be a little quick to 'dish out the spanking', or so it seems to me from this comment, "I just love it when 'all knowing' HPs spout their expertise when it comes to a very complicated and technical issue such as the management of spent nuclear fuel". I may be hasty in saying that, but I don't see yet where that tone was appropriate.

To be clear, what I am suggesting is that if someone has posted what you believe to be information that could be improved upon, you point it out in a more diplomatic way, one that exemplifies the respect that we must have for the problem solving process.

I say this because I believe that if the nuclear power industry is to continue to grow, we must be continuously dedicated to solving difficult Human Performance problems, rather than perhaps contributing to them with a few unnecessary words, such as, "I just love it when 'all knowing' HPs spout their expertise..."

I gave you karma, bringing you from 0 to +1, because I am hoping that it will help illustrate a point regarding your participation in this forum, and I believe it will jumpstart the new upward trend in your karma.

Thanks for listening to my thirty-five cents worth. I will as they say step off my soapbox now.

Bigchris

big chris & Rad-Ghost,

I appreciate the responses, useful information and comments.

big chris - my name is also Chris and I am big - 6'-5", so maybe we do have something in common regarding good karma.

I also agree with Rad-Ghost - you need someone at times to have dissenting opinions and to provide a differing point of view.  As you can see I am NOT a heavy-user, I have negative karma (for what ever reason), and I was labeled a 'posser'.  I am not like Marrsim where I can post all day long, I have other things to do.

However, when I see posts that are either incorrect or non-factual, if I have time, I will provide some addtional information to set the record straight.

I am going to take you up on your 'offers' to turn things to a positive karma, but before I do that I need to 'correct' Marrissm on a number of statements that do not pass the BS test.

Please refer to my separate response to his posting.

Thanks again for the positive feedback,

xynergy

[xynergy]

I twisted nothing, you typed "went to Limerick for free", not essentially for free, or free of costs to LIPA/LILCO, if you're gonna get twisted around the axle about being pinned down on the essence of something then get accurate the first time around or ignore the blowback, if it was not important enough to get technically right it is not important enough to get uptight about it's essence,....


Marssim you are the poser on this one.  I never stated nor said, that there was no cost to Shoreham. .. Limerick NOT Shoreham received essentially free fuel.  Also I was not 'pinned down' - you took my statements out of context.  A new BWR fuel assembly costs approximately $750K - $1M each.  I would say that Limerick got a very, very good deal.  They 'saved' themselves approximately $500M in new fuel costs.



The third or fourth ISFSI within a half dozen years of the first one ever, and the first ISFSI in Region One (yeah, those TMI-2 guys) is never a non-issue. A ballpark number of 33 casks to be designed, manufactured and delivered in circa 1993 would be unlikely in any scenario to be accomplished in under a year or under two years for that matter. Lead time et al, it's not going to happen, ergo years to accomplish. And that's before you factor in the politics and the schedule of the Shoreham DnD.

Agree to disagree on this one.



There is nothing to disagree on this one - since you are WRONG.

Marrssim, again you are the poser and don't close to stating anything that is even close to being factual.  First of all, Shoreham had a total of 560 spent fuel Assemblies that had not seen power levels greater than 5%.  For all practical purposes this fuel was 'new' and did not even come close to challenging either Part 71 or Part 72 regulations.  In addition, NUTECH/Vectra' had a licensed design in this specific time frame to accommodate 52 BWR fuel assemblies.  That results in a total at most of only 12 required canisters.  Where you came up with 33 canisters (it is not casks - there is a BIG difference) is a mystery to me.  You must be 'confusing' PWR canister assembly capacity with BWR assembly capacity.

If you really understood spent fuel storage and transportation management issues and regulations, you as any engineer would know that once the NRC staff grants a Part 72 licensee for either a general or site specific storage license, there is really not much licensing or design to perform.  It is pretty much a cookie cutter activity.  Believe me I know - been there and done that.  I think that you need to award yourself some poser points.

Also I am not sure that you were even at Shoreham for as what you call it DnD.  There was no Shoreham D&D all that was done was the simple activity of removing the fuel from the site and 'making' the site a radiologically contaminated industrial site.  The buildings are still standing so where is the DnD that you participated in as you so knowingly espouse?  MY, Rowe, CY, Big Rock, etc. were D&D projects ... NOT Shoreham.



I understand that you cannot find a single DOE correspondence that substantiates your motive to their stopping of the discussion. I fully understand that aside from how correct you believe it is to ship spent fuel to France it did not happen and I am pretty sure it has not correctly happened in the twenty years since that DnD. How other nations interpret a treaty is not an enforceable standard, if it were you would be correct and spent fuel shipments to France would be routine, they are not.

Utilities did sue for recovering Yucca costs, and within the same decade as Shoreham,....they won, in essence.


Again you do not know the regulations and definitely do not know the facts.  Marssim are you familiar with Safeguards and NMMIS?  The control and tracking of spent nuclear items is not publically available.  Geez maybe that is why, I can't 'find' a document to prove my point.  You might ask Jack Rollins who was at Shoreham for the duration.  You might also want to review the NWPA and the 'standard' contract (i.e., NUREG) that was executed by the USDOE and each and every utility that has a nuclear facility.  If the USDOE had allowed the Shoreham spent fuel to be shipped to France for reprocessing, the whole concept and contractual obligations of the NWPA , Marrissm, that is what Yucca Mountain is/was if you didn't know would have allowed every single Licensee that had signed the standard contract to get out of paying into the Yucca fund.  It is that simple.  Plus the fact that Jimmy Carter 'stopped' the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel since he thought foreign countries would find out how to make a bomb.  And you really know why, the Shoreham fuel was never sent to France.  It is NOT the BS story that you believe or the 'fantasies' that you are spouting.


Again, you type inaccuracies,....that would be the first and only out of context rebuttal and you get that back, even when you are correct you are inaccurate,....

Since you were not around for the Shoreham DnD at least now you know why the trains did not go through NYC,....

You've had two years to clear that up gracefully before you got backed into a corner, nobody is picking on you, you're just slow clearing up the inconsistencies in the essence of what you are typing and getting dam defensive about it.

Check your anti-HP BS at the door, don't get me started on the non-conformance reports to the NRC which have their origin on the desks of folks performing very complicated and technical issues managing spent fuel in dry storage. I thought I saw where one or two of those non-conformances came from facilities you have listed as your former stomping grounds.



I'll check my anti-HP crap at the door when folks that should know better such as YOU don't portray themselves as all knowing and saintlike.  Based on what I have read, you are the poser, and you do not know the simplest of facts regarding spent nuclear fuel.

For the record, I am a degreed engineer with 37+ years of both domestic and international nuclear experience.  I have worked at about 75% of all the US plants including some that were never even built.  I have performed project activities at about 90% of the plants.  I have also provided consulting services including extended assignments to nuclear utilities in South Korea, Taiwan, China, Spain, Italy (when they had plants), Mexico, Japan, Switzerland, and Sweden.  And for the record, I have been involved with the ISFSI projects at Robinson, Oconee, Davis-Besse, Calvert Cliffs, Millstone, Rowe, CY, MY, Palo Verde, McGuire, IP 2 & 3, Grand Gulf, HBNPP, St. Lucie, Turkey Point, Seabrook, and DOE K-Basins.  I also intimately know the schedule and cost for various ISFSI projects since I wrote the various bid documents, and also performed the technical and financial bid evaluations.  Finally I worked directly for 2 of the 3 current ISFSI vendors.  I was also involved with the studies to trans-ship spent fuel from CPL plants to Harris using IF-300 casks (not canisters in this case). 

I could go on, but I will stop.  I hate to deal with someone who has the distinct handicap of not knowing what they are talking about - that means YOU .. Marrissm.  YOU are the POSER.

Now let's be colleagues and enjoy the day,.....

(keep forgetting,.... ),... 

[RAD-GHOST]

Bigchris,

I am going to take you up on your 'offers' to turn things to a positive karma, but before I do that I need to 'correct' Marrissm on a number of statements that do not pass the BS test.

I WIN!    

[Fluffy Bunny]

At least xynergy is smart enough to use the quote system properly... what?  he didn't? hmmm.  -1 to a pampas ass.

Way to look like an idiot!

[RDTroja]

At least xynergy is smart enough to use the quote system properly... what?  he didn't? hmmm.  -1 to a pampas ass.

Way to look like an idiot!

He's a donkey from Argentina? Wow. (If so, Pampas should be capitalized.) 

[retired nuke]

At least xynergy is smart enough to use the quote system properly... what?  he didn't? hmmm.  -1 to a pampas ass.

Way to look like an idiot!

pampas - The Pampas (from Quechua, meaning "plain") are the fertile South American lowlands, covering more than 750,000 km2 (289,577 sq mi),
pompous - pomp·ous/ˈpämpəs/Adjective -  Affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important: "a pompous ass".
idiot - a small bunny, with fluffy fur....




   
(yes, I know which one I am...)

[RAD-GHOST]

Another well delivered lesson in Technical Accuracy    

RG!

[a|F]

edit: they didnt.

CM/Penguin/Starkist/Bueller:  GE and the NRC seem to think they had the hardened vent mod.  Maybe you could share your source(s)? 

http://markey.house.gov/docs/4-6-11markey_e-mail_2_-nrc_question_regarding_fukushima_unit_2.pdf

http://www.gereports.com/venting-systems-in-mark-i-reactors/

[Nuclear Renaissance]

We have been receiving some training material information on the Fukushima hardened vent. Yes, they had one. It tied into the plant stack, downstream of the Standby Gas tie-in (Standby Gas System is used to exhaust secondary containment atmosphere to maintain it at negative pressure during off-normal conditions - it uses emergency AC power). Upon the original loss of grid power, standby gas would've been in its "standby" alignment, with secondary containment suction dampers open. When the emergency power diesel generators were lost, that standby alignment would have failed as-is with a path to the stack. When primary containment venting was considered, the procedures required ensuring isolation of the standby gas path, but building rad level were too high to send someone in. It was not expected that the hydrogen from primary containment venting would backflow back down the stack/standby gas flowpath, but at the extremely high primary containment pressure they reached before venting (2x design), it had enough driving pressure to do so.

[a|F]

The NLO victim card?  Now that is a first!  If delicate is a synonym for quiet, then please do!

Nuke Ren- great to hear your site is providing follow up info and thanks for the post.  We have yet to receive much besides the standard propaganda.  It's interesting that they postulate the hydrogen backflow.  I've read other studies that show the drywell head flange as a likely failure point- which would release hydrogen directly to the refuel floor.  Pretty easy to see that happening at 2x design as well.