PDA

View Full Version : Storage of Naval Nuclear Reactor Compartments



Rheghead
17-Jul-10, 06:39
About 7 years ago the Government carried out a consultation study about what to do with 11 old reactor compartments from naval submarines. As far as I am aware a long term solution to this issue has not yet been resolved and one of the 3 main options is to store them indefinitely in Caithness at Dounreay.

Storage would mean jobs but the visual impact and infrastructure needed would be immense.

Does anyone have any strong views on this issue? Is the Dounreay site being cleared to make way for a naval storage facility?

Phill
17-Jul-10, 07:52
I think it makes sense. Provided THEY* do it properly and budget for the ongoing costs properly.

Visually Dounreay could never be described as pretty, is is an existing blot on the landscape so why build another elsewhere.

Infrastructure, if it can be sourced, produced, manufactured and constructed locally it is merely just a cost of the project.


(*THEY, the collective eejits normally responsible for approving such things, local MP's & councillors, Gov't etc.) They need to ensure that unlike most major MoD contracts, where they say it'll cost £xxM and ends up costing £xxxxM, it is planned and budgeted for accordingly.

John Little
17-Jul-10, 09:58
Apart from that, is there anywhere else in the UK with such a concentration of skilled nuclear people and expertise?

gleeber
17-Jul-10, 10:28
This is an issue that would need to be decided by the whole community. Some kind of referendum would need to be set up and if it was agreed for such a facility to be housed at Dounreay then a committee should be set up which didnt include any local politician, to find a way forward that would benefit the people of Caithness for as long as the facility existed.
Otherwise stick it in Kent. ;)
As for Dounreay. Ive always found it an attractive area visually and when I considered the work being carried out there and it's worldwide implications I could easily feel a sense of pride for what caithness gave to the world.

scoobyc
17-Jul-10, 11:29
I can't see a storage building being any worse to look at than all the windmills we have sprouting up over our country and at least this would be in one place.

DeHaviLand
17-Jul-10, 14:01
This is an issue that would need to be decided by the whole community. Some kind of referendum would need to be set up and if it was agreed for such a facility to be housed at Dounreay then a committee should be set up which didnt include any local politician, to find a way forward that would benefit the people of Caithness for as long as the facility existed.
Otherwise stick it in Kent. ;)
As for Dounreay. Ive always found it an attractive area visually and when I considered the work being carried out there and it's worldwide implications I could easily feel a sense of pride for what caithness gave to the world.

Ah, you want to move to Utopia then, and all flights to there are cancelled for the foreseeable future! Other than that, we just have to rely on our elected officials to make the decision on our behalf. Its why we pay them after all.

Bazeye
17-Jul-10, 14:06
Portgower.

golach
17-Jul-10, 15:30
Send them back to Barrow, thats where they were built/fitted/launched.

Bazeye
17-Jul-10, 16:52
Wrong. They were fitted in Barrow, not built in Barrow.

Kenn
17-Jul-10, 23:35
Would the storage facility be that much larger than the existing buildings on either Vulcan or Dounreay?

Rheghead
18-Jul-10, 00:46
Would the storage facility be that much larger than the existing buildings on either Vulcan or Dounreay?

I'm not sure. If the plans are to have them stored inside then the facility will be very much larger than anything Caithness has seen so far. But I'll expect them to be lined up side by side and open to the elements so we would be able to see them like massive rusting cotton bobbins.:lol:

The area needed to store them onshore would be very large as well but I don't think it will be larger than the existing Dounreay site but eventually all of the existing RN nuclear fleet will have to be stored somewhere and I think that would be an immense project.


Sandside bay will also be transformed out of recognition thus curing another environmental concern. A dock system will need to be built to receive these compartments from large barges. A connecting rail system to transport them from Sandside bay to the Dounreay site would be needed I'd imagine. Now that Dounreay has some ownership/access rights over Sandside beach and its useage, I think things are slotting into place to allow a dock to be built there.

theone
18-Jul-10, 05:55
Rheghead,

I wonder if you're maybe (not deliberately) exagerating the scale of this, in terms of jobs, visual impact, infrastructure and the affect on Sandwood bay.

Each reactor compartment would be around 10 metres high, maybe 15m long. Hardly huge in comparison to anything at Dounreay, not a great deal bigger than a Dounreay house!

I believe the jobs would be limited to security and occasional health physics monitoring. I imaging this could be done using the people that will be at Dounreay already. The important thing to remember ISOLUS (the programme you're talking about) stands for Interim Storage Of Laid Up Submarines. That's all it is, storage. All the defuelling,decommisioning and decontaminating will have been done in the shipyards.

Yes, the compartments would have to be delivered by barges by sea, probably to Sandside. But remember, this has been done in the past for the Vulcan reactor and very little evidence, certainly no large scale lasting disruption remains. There's a picture of the final stage here : http://www.heavyliftspecialist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/78BargeDounreaySchotland1984h-1024x720.jpg and even gives an idea of the size of the reactor compartments we're talking about.

I imagine Dounreay is a candidate, high on the list in fact, for the ISOLUS programme. Indeed it's been discussed for years. But I certainly don't think that Dounreay is being decommisioned to make way for it.

Unfortunately I doubt there would be much benefit, certainly in terms of jobs, for Caithness.

Rheghead
18-Jul-10, 06:29
Let's be right about this, storage area for initial 11 to 17 and eventually 27 compartments will have to be find. Each will be sited seperately with enough surrounding space for craneage and services, then there will be admin and general engineering workshops etc. It will probably take up the majority of area of the existing Dounreay when finished.

Yes, the module like you said were transported before but that was for non radioactive modules whereas these are radioactive so they'll come under a whole different level of transport and safety legislations and so greater infrastructure will be needed.

If it was easy and not a big problem then it would have been dealt with by now.

ywindythesecond
18-Jul-10, 09:02
Let's be right about this, storage area for initial 11 to 17 and eventually 27 compartments will have to be find. Each will be sited seperately with enough surrounding space for craneage and services, then there will be admin and general engineering workshops etc. It will probably take up the majority of area of the existing Dounreay when finished.

Yes, the module like you said were transported before but that was for non radioactive modules whereas these are radioactive so they'll come under a whole different level of transport and safety legislations and so greater infrastructure will be needed.

If it was easy and not a big problem then it would have been dealt with by now.
OK lets say that each structure had to be 25x20x20m, and you needed 20m between them, and you needed 30 spaces, and you laid them out 6 wide and 5 long, an area of 240x225metres. Big wind turbines take up about 350x350m each, or more.

At the Baillie Windfarm Inquiry, Alex Schlicke, landscape expert for the developer, agreed with me that one Baillie windmill would be much more visually intrusive than the Janetstown Test Facility, and that therefore, 21 Baillie windmills on Baillie Hill would be much more intrusive than 21 JTFs. JTF is 27m high.
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/2079/v2jocksmontageforswog.jpg
Reggy, you advocate stuffing Caithness full of windmills. Don’t you find it slightly ironic that you are concerned about a fairly modest compact industrial storage proposal in a location which is already industrialised and would look no worse than at present?

Rheghead
18-Jul-10, 10:13
Don’t you find it slightly ironic that you are concerned about a fairly modest compact industrial storage proposal in a location which is already industrialised and would look no worse than at present?[/FONT][/SIZE]

Who said I was against it or concerned about it?

Also I find it ironic when it comes to non windmill subjects that you suddenly regain your sense of reason and objective thought. However I'd like to point out that one reactor compartment is a much larger structure in terms of weight and volume than a single wind turbine, probably by a factor of ten going by the dimensions you suggested.

gleeber
18-Jul-10, 10:25
But I'll expect them to be lined up side by side and open to the elements so we would be able to see them like massive rusting cotton bobbins.:lol:.


That's all it is, storage. All the defuelling,decommisioning and decontaminating will have been done in the shipyards.
I'm probably missing something fundamental here but why can't they be broken up if they have been decommisioned and cleaned?

Rheghead
18-Jul-10, 10:35
I'm probably missing something fundamental here but why can't they be broken up if they have been decommisioned and cleaned?

They are impossible to clean due to the action of the radiation on the integrity of the steel.

gleeber
18-Jul-10, 10:37
So why would the containers be open to the elements?

Rheghead
18-Jul-10, 10:40
So why would the containers be open to the elements?

The outer shell won't be radioactive.

gleeber
18-Jul-10, 10:42
Hmm, ok. :eek:

Rheghead
18-Jul-10, 10:50
I've also read that the Americans are storing their reactor compartments at their Hanford site but they have dug a large pit and eventually theirs will be covered over with the spoil.

Now if that is the strategy here then I believe a suitable hole at Dounreay will need a lot of blasting rather than quarrying with diggers etc. :eek:

gleeber
18-Jul-10, 10:55
That was the scenario with Nirex when they were sniffing about Dounreay although I don't think they will have gone away. It was going to have been one of the largest civil engineering contracts of all time.

gleeber
18-Jul-10, 10:57
Apparently the bedrock below the village of Reay was just perfect for the large sealed chambers they were going to build. Unfortunately Reay was going to have to be moved.

Bazeye
18-Jul-10, 16:45
Strap them to the space shuttle and "lose" them in space.

Green_not_greed
18-Jul-10, 17:10
I don't see why they can't be melted and used to make drums to hold nuclear waste.

From what I can gather from the ISOLUS and MoD websites, only Coulport was identified as a "suitable onshore site" by MoD.

theone
18-Jul-10, 17:22
If it was easy and not a big problem then it would have been dealt with by now.

I'm not suggesting it's easy, nor that it's not big. I just think our opinions on the scale differ.

Good timing for your post though, I wonder if one of the bids for the Nigg yard here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-10659409 shouldn't raise more eyebrows.

Nigg was previously mooted as a site for ISOLUS, and the potential takeover by a demolition firm could allow not only the storage of the compartments, but the dismantling of the whole submarine in one place. This would eliminate many of the problems with transport / infrastructure that you suggest.

theone
18-Jul-10, 17:36
Jus found here: http://www.submarinedismantling.com/assets/downloads/publicconsultation/ISOLUS_ReportonMODCoastalSitesJan05.pdf

The de-fuelled reactor compartment is a cylindrical section of the sub
marine pressure hull, measuring 8m x 10m weighing approximately 7
50 tonnes. Both ends of each reactor compartment will be sealed with
a membrane, the thickness of which can be determined by the storag
e location and conditions.
(2.)
An area 150m x 50m will be required on which to house a building up
to 15m high required to carry out the dismantling process.
(3.)
The storage site will hold a maximum of 37 de-fuelled reactor compar
tments (27 existing plus an assumed number of 10 Astute Class).

That website is well worth a look for those interested.

Green_not_greed
18-Jul-10, 21:39
Lets look at the facts here rather than the shootstirring which has kicked off this thread

The MoD sites assessment report can be found at

http://www.submarinedismantling.com/assets/downloads/publicconsultation/ISOLUS_ReportonMODCoastalSitesJan05.pdf

This report has absolutely no mention of Dounreay, though does consider Vulcan as an option. Vulcan does not score well and is only rated in the top sites as "the local authority is keen to bring work in".

So Highland Council are the ones pushing this as an option. Tell your councillors if you don't agree with it.

Rheghead
18-Jul-10, 21:46
Lets look at the facts here rather than the shootstirring which has kicked off this thread

The MoD sites assessment report can be found at

http://www.submarinedismantling.com/assets/downloads/publicconsultation/ISOLUS_ReportonMODCoastalSitesJan05.pdf

This report has absolutely no mention of Dounreay, though does consider Vulcan as an option. Vulcan does not score well and is only rated in the top sites as "the local authority is keen to bring work in".

So Highland Council are the ones pushing this as an option. Tell your councillors if you don't agree with it.
It takes a big leap to go from "the local authority is keen to bring work in" to "So Highland Council are the ones pushing this as an option." I'm not saying it doesn't mean the same thing, but it is possible I suppose.

Green_not_greed
18-Jul-10, 22:11
It takes a big leap to go from "the local authority is keen to bring work in" to "So Highland Council are the ones pushing this as an option." I'm not saying it doesn't mean the same thing, but it is possible I suppose.


Highland Council are keen to bring the work in. Their document here

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/204810C6-AA79-447C-AEE1-BC15706EC004/0/hc66.pdf

More or less says "we'll have it but we want paid"..

There is no statement against it and they encourage the MoD findings.

As I said earlier, MoD have since stated that only Coulport is now being considered as a suitable site, and so I think that by stating that submarines are to be stored at Dounreay is pure bunkum. The Coulport statement can be found at

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/ProjectFactsheets/InterimStorageOfLaidupSubmarinesprojectIsolus.htm

BTW I have driven through the US submarine RCs at Hanford (in 1995) they were indeed lying side by side awaiting burial.

Dounreay
19-Jul-10, 08:37
Is the Dounreay site being cleared to make way for a naval storage facility?

Dounreay is being demolished because the experimental facilities are redundant.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, in conjunction with the site stakeholder group, recently carried out some work with the public on the "end state" for the site. This is the condition the site is left in once decommissioning is complete. Click here (http://www.dounreay.com/decommissioning/end-state-of-site) for more information.

The current long-range plan for the Dounreay site contains no proposals for re-use of the site, other than the continued storage of conditioned radioactive wastes and materials from site decommissioning, pending a national storage or disposal policy.

More information about the work being carried out by the Ministry of Defence on submarine disposal can be found here (http://www.submarinedismantling.co.uk/).


Colin Punler
Communications Manager
Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd

Rheghead
19-Jul-10, 09:04
Thanks, but the reuse of the site as a naval reactor compartment disposal facility is still a strong possibility. A final decision does not have to be taken until 2020 when 'wet' storage space will run out. As it stands today, the Dounreay site is already a storage facility for one and eventually two obsolete naval reactor compartments by 2020.