[ RadSafe ] Danger of nuclear fuel storage at Columbia Generating Station
Miller, Mark L
mmiller at sandia.gov
Tue Nov 25 14:49:14 CST 2014
Mike has a good point. HOWEVER, I think Jimmy Carter could explain WHY GE's design, which was probably predicated on the expectation of REPROCESSING the fuel, would NOT have resulted in its being stored there for long periods! Just one of the many unintended consequences of his decision to halt used fuel reprocessing.
On Nov 24, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote:
> 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.
More information about the RadSafe