Crash testing of nuclear fuel shipping containers

Jefferson, R.M.; Yoshimura, Hidenori

doi:10.2172/5140774

Cited by 9 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The cask penetrated 2.4 meters (8 feet) into the hard soil but suffered no measurable deformation. An identical cask dropped 9 meters (30 feet) onto an essentially unyielding surface during regulatory testing suffered considerably more deformation (Jefferson and Yoshimura, 1978). More recent research has expanded the study of yielding targets (e.g., concrete surfaces) and their comparison with the regulatory surface (Gonzalez, 1986).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Assessment of Urgent-Relief Acceptance of Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transport by truck of the spent fuel from the port of entry to Savannah River Site, near Aiken, South Carolina, for storage in an existing underwater pool.The Environmental Assessment analyzes the acceptance of alternative numbers of spent fuel elements (ranging from 0 to 953) as alternatives to the proposed acceptance of 409 spent fuel elements, and overland transport by rail as an alternative mode of ground transportation.Upon further consideration, and in an effort to balance the domestic and international interests at stake, the Department of Energy (DOE) has decided that, rather than implementing the proposed action described in the Environmental Assessment, the preferred approach for implementing the urgent-relief acceptance of foreign research reactor spent fuel is: 0To ship the spent fuel by commercial or chartered vessel from Europe to the Army's Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point, North Carolina, to the maximum extent practicable, (rather than allowing the shipper to select from among any one of the five proposed ports as described in the Environmental Assessment); and 0 To transport the spent fuel overland to the Savannah River Site by rail (rather than by truck).The preparation of this Environmental Assessment included a broad effort to engage elected officials, federal agencies, nonproliferation and environmental public interest organizations, and members of the public in consideration of the proposed acceptance of foreign research reactor spent fuel. Those efforts included distribution of two separate drafts of the Environmental Assessment for comment in October 1993 and February 1994, briefing of federal, state, and local officials, and meetings with interested parties. For example, DOE and the Department of State hosted an all-day public meeting in Washington, D.C. on February 10, 1994 to provide representatives of key stakeholders an opportunity for constructive dialogue. In addition, DOE held several meetings concerning the proposed acceptance of foreign research reactor spent fuel in the Hampton Roads area, Virginia; Brunswick County and Wilmington, North Carolina; Charleston and Mount Pleasant, ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%