[ RadSafe ] Safety Issues Linger as Nuclear Reactors Shrink in Size

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

Hi, Maury.

 

I know that on several occasions US Navy nuclear powered vessels have
provided emergency power to area after major storms.  I am not aware of
any decommissioned vessels used to produce electricity, and have
firsthand knowledge of the program that sends the de-fueled reactors to
Hanford for disposal (I am inspecting one next week, in fact).  

 

I personally thought that the best thing that could have been done with
the many nuke submarines and cruisers we have decommissioned would have
been to dock them in various ports, hook them up to shore power, and use
the reactor to feed the grid until they couldn't pull the control rods
out enough to keep the reactor critical.  (Yes, I know there would have
had to be infrastructure built to support this, but it would not have
been difficult).  It would have provided a lot of electricity that could
have been sold at the going rate (that would not have been controlled by
Enron) and used up fuel rods that already had to be treated as spent.
And it would have left the hulls intact, in case as some point we need
to have a larger Navy in a hurry.  

 

But no one listens to me about these things.

 

From: Maury Siskel [mailto:maurysis at peoplepc.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 10:53 AM
To: Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Safety Issues Linger as Nuclear Reactors Shrink
in Size

 

Using NP units from decommissioned subs and other vessels for civilian
applications (both routine and emergency) has long been a source of
wonder to me. Is this a true safety issue or is it mostly stereotyped
fears?
Best,
Maury&Dog [MaurySiskel  maurysis at peoplepc.com]
====================

Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote:



I've talked with men who served on the Seawolf when she had the liquid
sodium cooled reactor.  They joked that the Auxiliary Primary Coolant
Leak Alarm was sonar reporting rhythmic explosions from the amidships.  
 
One thing I did like from the article is the company that wants to build
reactors sized so they can replace the boiler in a coal-fired power
plant, and use the rest of the infrastructure.  I don't think I will bet
on them being able to convince everyone that it is OK, but I wish them
well.    
 
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Glenn R.
Marshall
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 10:03 AM
To: Doug Huffman; radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Safety Issues Linger as Nuclear Reactors Shrink
in Size
 
Liquid sodium and water don't play well together
 
 
Glenn Marshall, CHP, RRPT
 
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Huffman
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 12:58 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Safety Issues Linger as Nuclear Reactors Shrink
in Size
 
On 3/19/2010 11:42, Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote:
  

	I am a fan of the idea of smaller, modular reactors, but I have
to
	    

agree
  

	with the environmentalists who are not impressed with liquid
metal
	cooled reactors.  They have great characteristics, and made the
Alfa
	class submarines a nightmare (I was on Active Duty when the Alfa
first
	came out, and there was much discontent when it became clear
that they
	could go faster and deeper than our torpedoes.)  However, any
reactor
	that only gets to shut down once, whether it has been running
decades
	    

or
  

	weeks, has a real downside.
	 
	    

 
USS Seawolf SSN-575 was commissioned in 1957 with a liquid-sodium plant 
and converted to light water S2W two years later due to lessons learned 
then and now forgotten?