It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Mirlin11
I see your point Ginny. This whole thread could easily explain Val's Falls Creek experience.
Originally posted by Ginny in CO
On the nuclear aspect. Even the stored spent fuel is so highly contained in layers of protection that it would be really unlikely a significant break could occur.
or at best, may be hoping to fortuitously discover illegal activities of yours (like doing drugs) that will enable them to deal with you in other ways.
Originally posted by XGovGirl
You're not interested in the info. in this thread anyway so why do you continue to try to shead negativity on the idea and discredit it?Clearly from a few pages back you do not want to even think about this being a possibility.
Please provide more definite proof that spent fuel rods from Waterford were stored at Michoud.
You're kidding right? Michoud being an old army military facility, the place that barge recovery workers from NASA use, a bomb weapon factory, that question isn't even a question.
In 1940, with the outbreak of World War II, the U.S. government purchased a 1,000 acre tract as the site of war-related construction. Within three years, the world's largest building at that time -- 43 acres under one roof -- was completed, and plywood cargo planes and landing craft rolled off the production line to aid the war effort.
During the Korean conflict the facility was again activated for the production of 12-cylinder air-cooled engines for Sherman and Patton tanks.
In 1961, with the space race with the Russians heating up, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) took over the facility for design and assembly of large space vehicles. The first space project at the Michoud facility was the design and development of the first stage of the powerful Saturn booster, destined to place man on the moon. Construction of the Saturn S1B and S1C boosters continued at the Michoud facility until the early 1970s, when the Apollo program wound down and work began on the Space Shuttle, the next generation launch vehicle.
I have a bunch of docs on this but really who even needs those,
why else would Waterford III rent space there is the question you should ask yourself
There is plenty of info. online about Michoud, their history of ground soil contamination, this plant has been used since the 40's-50's for weapons production and you don't believe there is any prior-existing nuclear waste contamination that could have leaked into the waterways. It was flooded, so that is already a given.
As for the spent fuel pools there, it is just a matter of finding out what buildings were damaged. Will this ever be available for the public? Highly doubt that, but this will all come to light down the road once they can't hide it from the public anymore, and once this happens you better be your pants that they are going to play dumb.
Curious why you would question Michoud?
"the Norco facility has been authorized to handle small quantities of radioactive material for calibration purposes since at least the mid-1970s. Officials have emphasized throughout the history of the company that they never handled anything beyond such small quantities,
The company has been allowed as much as 660 pounds of depleted uranium, which is the spent fuel from nuclear power generation and is considered minimally radioactive.
Because it would have been illegal and impossible to move the fuel without someone figuring out that it was illegal.
Wrong again, it is not illegal. Just years back the Nuclear Reg. Commission started giving Premission to plants to allow for off site assemblies and storage. I'm a bit too lazy at the moment to quote this
but I believe it was back in the thread here. It isn't illegal, as long as
there are premissions made to the storage companies, such as the Norco
company above and a few other places Waterford was using.
"We've been storing our excess Spent fuel rods because we are one of the biggest producers, the Nuclear Reg. Commission backed us and allowed for us to increase our capacity a while ago, and because of this we've been storing excess spent fuel all over highly populated areas of New Orleans.
Not only that we here at Entergy Corp. just extinguished a fire that was burning from the moment Hurricane Katrina hit until September 1st. That fire was located at a place we like to hide some of our excess spent fuel rods...... oh yeah and by the way that large explosion downtown you heard was also our responsibility too. But don't worry folks...... there is NO DAMAGE, have a nice day"
Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generating Capability, 1999
State Plant Primary
Energy Sources Operating Company Net
1. Willow Glen Petroleum, Gas Entergy Gulf States Inc 1,875
2. Ninemile Point Petroleum, Gas Entergy Louisiana Inc 1,736
3. Big Cajun 2 Petroleum, Coal Cajun Electric Power Coop Inc 1,730
4. Little Gypsy Petroleum, Gas Entergy Louisiana Inc 1,193
5. Waterford 3 Nuclear Entergy Louisiana Inc 1,075
6. Rodemacher Gas, Coal CLECO Corporation 963
7. Riverbend Nuclear Entergy Gulf States Inc 936
8. R S Nelson Petroleum, Gas, Coal Entergy Gulf States Inc 843
9. Michoud Petroleum, Gas Entergy New Orleans Inc 838
10. Waterford 1 & 2 Petroleum, Gas Entergy Louisiana Inc 822
Originally posted by XGovGirl
Waterford III has a "Waterford Michoud" Plant remember?
Parts of the lead shielding may start to melt and seals may fail, but an extreme fire would not cause the release of any significant amount of radioactive material from the casks that would bring highly radioactive waste to a proposed storage site in Utah.
So says a new study by safety experts at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that looked at what would happen to the casks used to ship spent reactor fuel if they were subjected to a fire, such as the one in the Baltimore railroad tunnel in July 2001.
This is a "what if" study, said Earl Easton, a senior advisor in the NRC's spent fuel project office.
The results contradict an earlier study by a radioactive waste watchdog group.
The NRC study covered three kinds of shipping casks, including the kind that will likely be used to ship spent fuel through Utah County should a proposed storage facility at the Goshute Indian Reservation in Skull Valley become a reality.
That project became more likely after the NRC approved a license for the facility last week.The NRC safety study used a computer model based on data from actual fires, including the Baltimore tunnel fire, which burned for several days. The study showed no spent fuel would be released from the casks.
The odds of such a fire involving radioactive waste would be one in five trillion rail miles traveled, Easton said.
But a 2002 report by Matthew Lamb and Marvin Resnikoff of Radioactive Waste Management Associates estimated that had the train in the Baltimore tunnel carried spent fuel, such as that bound for Skull Valley or Yucca Mountain, nearly 400,000 area residents would have been exposed to radiation.
The resulting exposure would have resulted in 5,000 to 32,000 related cancer deaths within 50 years. And if either facility in Utah or Nevada were to open, hundreds of such shipments would be rolling through communities across the country each year for 24 to 38 years, the report said.
Easton, however, took issue with Lamb and Resnikoff's assumptions that may be outdated and rely on cask deformation from a severe impact. "We don't think these apply," Easton said. The Baltimore fire did not involve any severe impact. Incidents that involve impact and fire have been the subject of other studies, he said. The type of cask likely to hold spent fuel bound for Skull Valley, the Holtec Hi-Star 100, would be the least likely of the casks tested to leak, he said.
The computer model showed the hottest part of the fire would be about 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. After seven hours at that temperature, the inside of the cask still would be well below the temperature at which the fuel rods would break down, Easton said. The fuel rods would be inside a stainless steel canister welded shut, which in turn would be inside the shipping cask that consists of 10 inches of multiple layers of metal. A nine-inch lid would be secured with bolts tightened 10 to 15 times as tight as the lug nuts on a car. The weak link is the seals between the lid and the cask. On two types of casks the seals failed, and the model showed a small amount of radioactive contamination -- known to experts as "crud" -- could leak out.
"We don't believe that this would pose any significant danger to first responders," Easton said. If one person were exposed to all of it, it would result in a third of the allowed exposure of 500 millirem per year for first responders -- about the same as an X-ray. On the Hi-Star 100, the seal is metal and less likely to fail at the tested temperatures, Easton said. In addition, the metal covering on the fuel rods and the inner canister would remain intact.
"We don't expect any spent fuel to come out of that," he said.