[ RadSafe ] Fwd: [New post] Danger of nuclear fuel storage at Columbia Generating Station
Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV
Tue Dec 9 11:12:49 CST 2014
An interim storage pool would be a good solution at many NPPs in the United States (and elsewhere, probably). At CGS one could build an underground storage pool such that in the case of loos of all power, ground water could gravity flow into the pool to balance evaporation. Wouldn't even be hard to design. The cost of the structure would probably be less than the cost of rearranging spent fuel in the current pool, if spread over the expected life of the reactor (barring activist achieving their dreams).
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Olsson Mattias :MSO
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 2:50 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: [New post] Danger of nuclear fuel storage at Columbia Generating Station
It seems like a good idea to me too to remove spent fuel from the storage pool above the reactor. It is a rather fragile part of a BWR plant after all. In Sweden the once-through principle for use of nuclear fuel has been rather hegemonic for decades, not least for political reasons. So there is an interim storage solution that has been around for some time. Web page and presentation material here, if anyone is interested:
After having spent time in that pool system the fuel is meant to go on to a not yet built geological repository.
All the best,
Mattias Olsson, Sweden
Från: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] För Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Skickat: den 24 november 2014 20:24
Till: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Ämne: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: [New post] Danger of nuclear fuel storage at Columbia Generating Station
While I have to admit not being surprised that a study funded by anti-nuke groups concludes that (fill in the blank) is too dangerous and ought to be shut down, I have to say that spent fuel pools in the upper stories of structures have never struck be as the best of ideas. I recognize that it is keen to be able to move fuel from in the reactor to in the pool without lifting it out of the water. However, after a couple of years to cool so it isn't just crazy radioactive it would also be keen if it were somewhere else. I know about dry cask storage, and very much approve, but there could be an in-ground pool, not inside the reactor building, where the fuel could chill for the few more years needed before it is ready for dry cask. If the fuel was moved one or two assemblies at a time shielding and cooling wouldn't be a big problem.
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe