RE: submarines and Norm

["Jim Darrough" <darrough@engr.orst.edu>]

	Fortunately for commercial nuclear power plants, they are not required to

design their plants for heavy seas, flexing of support structures (except

for course for thermal expansion), or torpedo and/or depth charge

explosions, either. I think that would probably explain the robust design.



	Also, as far as I know there has never been a major nuclear accident on a

Navy vessel. But then again, maybe they just aren't telling us! Although

none of the Subs I know about ever disappeared without a trace.



Sincerely,

		Jim Darrough, ICCS(SW) USN (retired)



-----Original Message-----

From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Kent, Michael D.

Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 4:48 PM

To: High Plains Drifter; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: RE: submarines and Norm











Kent, the reason they may never be refueled, is the robust fuel elements,

unique geometry, and the fact they used highly enriched fuel.  Fifteen years

and they still have nearly half of their fuel left.  Also, because cost is

no problem, they can build and equip them with high integrity materials.

Also, try and build a steam generator with the same material processes and

specs the Navy uses, and see what it costs.  Steam generator chemistry, as

many, commercial PWRs found out is not just basic chemistry and periodic

evaluation.





1.   The reason the 688's will never be refueled is because of cost and cost

alone.  In the post cold war era, the fleet has been reduced from >100 subs

to ~60 subs.   The core was designed to last ~20 years without refueling.

But the subs are being decommissioned before that time even arrives.  The

sub as a whole is not obsolete, and has plenty of life left, it is just

about cost.  The Navy cannot afford to keep so many around.



2.  The Steam Generator Chemistry used in the Civilian world looks at

chemical contaminant levels 10-1000 time lower than the Navy.  Maybe it is

something to do with the construction, the Navy spent the money up front in

construction, so they would not have to down the line, you pay the piper

some time.  Maybe in the Navy it is taught the first assumption in reactor

protection analysis is that chemistry is in spec at the beginning of the

casualty, so keep in spec all the times no matter what.  People are correct

in one area, the Navy does not put production or cost ahead of properly

operating the plant.  "Well we will correct that chemistry problem down the

line.  It really isn't affecting me now."  That sort of mentality has lead

to things 10 years later biting Commercial Plants in the behind.



Michael D. Kent

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/