Duerr, D (1991) Transportation of shippingport reactor pressure vessel. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(3), pp. 551-564. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The Shippingport Atomic Power Station in western Pennsylvania is the first nuclear electric generating station to be decommissioned with the goal of restoring the site to a radiologically clean condition acceptable for unrestricted use. In February, 1989, the 921 ton (836 metric tons) reactor pressure vessel/neutron-shield tank assembly was hauled from a storage area on the plant site to a barge slip; loaded onto an oceangoing barge; shipped from Pennsylvania to Hanford, Washington; and hauled overland to a burial site on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Hanford Reservation. This paper reviews the engineering requirements for the land and marine transportation operations. Engineering criteria for the hauling equipment and marine vessels, testing requirements, and operational methodology employed during the multimodal transportation are examined. Recommendations are made for future work of this nature performed as a part of nuclear plant maintenance and decommissioning projects, with particular emphasis placed on hauling-equipment performance requirements.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | testing, land, decommissioning, methodology, power station |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, renovation and retrofit, research methods, real estate economics, professional practice |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here