Shipping nuclear generators

Post a reply


BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Maximum filesize per attachment: 3 MiB.

Expand view Topic review: Shipping nuclear generators

Re: Shipping nuclear generators

by Guest » September 5, 2010, 6:21 pm

I encourage people to look at all the facts. Some sources may have a bias.

Re: Shipping nuclear generators

by DCN » September 5, 2010, 5:34 pm

Guest wrote:Steam gerantors do not themselves become radioactive because they were in a nuclear plant.

Highly radioactive water was not discharged from the Hanford plant back into the river.
You are correct that steam generators do not themselves become radioactive because they were in a nuclear plant. However, they do become contaminated because they make up part of the primary coolant loop of the reactor. See press releases and a presentation (see link) from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for more on the steam generators in question.

http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/pdfs ... ound_e.pdf

As for the discharge of cooling water from the production reactors at Hanford I direct you to "On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site" by Michele Stenehjem Gerber. Specifically Chapter 5, “Hail Columbia: The River-borne Contaminants", in which one will find that eight single-pass reactors operated over a twenty-seven year period, not to mention much more information about the contamination of the Columbia River from activities that went on at Hanford.

Re: Shipping nuclear generators

by Guest » September 5, 2010, 1:12 pm

Steam gerantors do not themselves become radioactive because they were in a nuclear plant.

Highly radioactive water was not discharged from the Hanford plant back into the river.



DCN wrote:Clearly people have concerns over shipments like this and rightly so. Radioactive pollution isn’t like other kinds that we are all more familiar with. We could all see the oil in the Gulf of Mexico but the radioactive waste that has been dumped into the oceans is much harder to see. There is no stereotypical barrel of glowing green ooze. And to think of radioactive waste ending up in the Great Lakes is a very unpleasant thought indeed.

To keep this in perspective lets think about the cargo. Sixteen steam generators, which are large pressure vessels not unlike some of the refinery equipment that is shipped into the lakes. The steam generators are going to be radioactive because they made up part of the primary coolant loop of the reactor, but the radioactivity is going to be the metal itself, not material that can be dislodged from them and spread into the wider environment. If a steam generator were to be lost into a lake it is likely built so strong that it would survive intact and be recoverable. The level of radioactivity from these vessels is going to be low enough that any time spent transiting a lock or passing a city will have no impact on people on shore, in fact the crew of the vessel will probably be fine unless they decide to spend all their time in physical contact with the cargo. Remember, these steam generators are being stored someplace right now and people are working around them every day. Of course the NIMBYs will be out in their boats protesting the ship passing their city and in doing so causing the ship to slow or stop and spend more time right where they don’t want it to be.

In the grand scheme of nuclear pollution this cargo is a minor risk. The plutonium production reactors at Hanford, Washington operated for years as single pass reactors. That is their cooling water was pulled from the Columbia River, passed through the core of the reactor, and was discharged directly back into the river highly radioactive to flow past every town and city on to the Pacific Ocean. In comparison, if this entire shipment were to be lost in the lakes and never recovered, in all the years it would take for the pressure vessels to rust away and be lost to time, they would probably release less radioactivity into the environment than ten minutes of Hanford in the 1950s.

I don’t want the Great Lakes polluted, I wish they were cleaner than they are now, and I surely don’t want radioactive waste to end up in them. But unless the NIMBYs want these steam generators buried in their back yards, load them on a boat and let them go get recycled.

Re: Shipping nuclear generators

by Tom » September 5, 2010, 10:01 am

Port of Oshawa has a vessel load radioactive cargo at least once a year. It goes to the Baltic for recharging.

Re: Shipping nuclear generators

by DCN » September 4, 2010, 11:13 pm

Clearly people have concerns over shipments like this and rightly so. Radioactive pollution isn’t like other kinds that we are all more familiar with. We could all see the oil in the Gulf of Mexico but the radioactive waste that has been dumped into the oceans is much harder to see. There is no stereotypical barrel of glowing green ooze. And to think of radioactive waste ending up in the Great Lakes is a very unpleasant thought indeed.

To keep this in perspective lets think about the cargo. Sixteen steam generators, which are large pressure vessels not unlike some of the refinery equipment that is shipped into the lakes. The steam generators are going to be radioactive because they made up part of the primary coolant loop of the reactor, but the radioactivity is going to be the metal itself, not material that can be dislodged from them and spread into the wider environment. If a steam generator were to be lost into a lake it is likely built so strong that it would survive intact and be recoverable. The level of radioactivity from these vessels is going to be low enough that any time spent transiting a lock or passing a city will have no impact on people on shore, in fact the crew of the vessel will probably be fine unless they decide to spend all their time in physical contact with the cargo. Remember, these steam generators are being stored someplace right now and people are working around them every day. Of course the NIMBYs will be out in their boats protesting the ship passing their city and in doing so causing the ship to slow or stop and spend more time right where they don’t want it to be.

In the grand scheme of nuclear pollution this cargo is a minor risk. The plutonium production reactors at Hanford, Washington operated for years as single pass reactors. That is their cooling water was pulled from the Columbia River, passed through the core of the reactor, and was discharged directly back into the river highly radioactive to flow past every town and city on to the Pacific Ocean. In comparison, if this entire shipment were to be lost in the lakes and never recovered, in all the years it would take for the pressure vessels to rust away and be lost to time, they would probably release less radioactivity into the environment than ten minutes of Hanford in the 1950s.

I don’t want the Great Lakes polluted, I wish they were cleaner than they are now, and I surely don’t want radioactive waste to end up in them. But unless the NIMBYs want these steam generators buried in their back yards, load them on a boat and let them go get recycled.

Re: Shipping nuclear generators

by Diver Dan » September 4, 2010, 3:37 pm

As I recall it, they want to ship some low-level radioactive materials to a recycling company in a Scandinavian country (Sweden?). The recipient will take responsibility for the materials from the time the ship leaves the dock, so they will apply their own regulations for the safety and containment of the radioactive material, which should be more stringent than the country of registration. This recycling company has found a way to reuse the metals for other uses, which is better than storing it for years. Anti-nuke protesters want the radioactive material removed (Not in my backyard!), but they also protest the every method of transportation of nuclear waste. Several cities along the waterways have gotten concerned about the shipment passing by, so both US and Canadian governments will have to be consulted, unless they already have agreements in place for such shipments.

Re: Shipping nuclear generators

by AARCR » September 4, 2010, 1:26 pm

Where are they coming from and going to?
Are the radioactive or have they just been in a nuclear plant?

Shipping nuclear generators

by Port Hoper » September 4, 2010, 10:08 am

Bruce Power wants to ship 16 radioactive steam g;enerators through the Great Lakes on the M/V Panthera or two of its sister ships registered in Antigua and Barbuda. My questions:
What other nuclear shipments have gone through the seaway?
How do we find out if the Panthera has ever carried nuclear cargo before?
What do we know about Antigua-Barbuda's nuclear safety regulations? The generators will be subject to thos regulations during the voyage.

Top