Key design points for a nuclear waste store
Having worked in the nuclear industry, it has always frustrated me that the storage of nuclear waste still remains an issue, and an impediment to future nuclear development (“Going underground,” Professional Engineering No 5, 2022).
The current above-ground storage remains a high-risk option because it is vulnerable to terrorist activity.
Although I applaud the work being carried out to look at underground storage, the system suggested by the illustration with the article looks extremely complex. The use of vertical shafts gives rise to cranes, possible dropped loads and a complex safety assessment, not to mention the maintenance and load testing. My vision of a storage facility is of a system that requires little power or maintenance, and that all the waste can be inspected and retrieved, thus allowing it to be repackaged or reprocessed in the future.
I would like to see the following features in a nuclear waste store: access would be horizontal, probably by a railway track. This removes the need for lifts, shafts and inclines which all come with safety and maintenance issues. Horizontal access would also ensure that the storage facility was above the water table. There would be no requirement for pumps and associated power supplies. The entrance would contain an automated system for unloading the transport containers and transferring their inner components onto skids. The skids would hover on a flat floor, with compressed air supplied by the tug which would move the skid to its final destination in the tunnels. The skid is a simple structure without wheels, brakes or bearings; it has no moving parts and therefore requires no maintenance.
The cooling of the decay products would be by natural ventilation, with filtration for emergency use. When the facility is full there is little maintenance and almost no power requirement, therefore not a burden to future generations.
As the system described provides a method of waste retrieval, the geological demands are much reduced, as the waste could be removed in a relatively short period, if geological conditions dictate. There is no requirement to look for the ‘forever site’.
M J Oakley
Nuclear waste strategy needed
I was prompted to comment on reading the article “Going underground” in which Paul Shipley encourages young engineers to consider a career in nuclear waste disposal. I was in the power industry and involved in nuclear safety in design, spent fuel, waste management and decommissioning. It was a rewarding career.
However, since the 1950s the problem of high-level waste disposal has been shelved. Most of this waste is in interim storage at Sellafield in Cumbria. Some decades ago this was seen as a logical location to explore deep geological disposal, and test drilling was started. This was challenged by anti-nuclear protesters and the government backed off.
With the current proposal to build up to six nuclear generating plants with consequent high-level waste issues, the question of final disposal must be addressed, otherwise opposition will again arise. The government would be well advised to propose a final waste disposal strategy which must be a state, not private, initiative.
I have consulted the draft Energy Security Bill of July 2022 in which part 12 deals with nuclear licensing, decommissioning and low-level waste disposal legislation only. The bill deals mainly with low-carbon technology, hydrogen, carbon capture, zoned district heating, smart meters and heat pumps. Private investment in nuclear is covered briefly but there is no mention of nuclear waste disposal strategy.
Aran Brown
Ways to combat stress
I’ve spent time with the Support Network of the IMechE. I appreciate their help – it’s an excellent service.
I was interested in the article “Breaking point” (Professional Engineering No 4, 2022). I am writing with a few examples of root causes and structural sources of stress, workplace conflict, and other sources of help.
In my experience one root cause of stress can be building design, for example making sure there are enough sanitary facilities in the workplace (a health and safety issue).
Commercial pressure can be a driver for stress, such as sales departments promising things to customers before the products have been designed – this can create workplace conflict between employees.
Rules/laws are being broken during workplace conflict, for example people need to be more careful about telephone calls and emails – see section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. Such behaviour can cause stress, anxiety or mood swings.
There is a three-year time limit for conflict resolution in the UK – this leaves no provision for people who are trying to resolve conflicts past that time. Perhaps this law needs to change?
Industrial chaplains could also help engineers (www.workchaplaincyuk.org.uk/).
I hope this information is useful.
Matt Colquhoun
Firms must boost training
For many years I have been listening to the complaint that we have insufficient engineers for our industry, and I wonder whether this could be because companies are putting too little into training and sponsoring.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, once one had taken A-levels there were many sponsorships available from companies such as Rolls-Royce, Ford, Perkins and many others. I believe a bit of government money was made available but in my case, at Vauxhall, my fees were paid as was a small salary. A number of such companies had training schools from where craft apprentices would be trained and graduate trainees also given basic training.
The scheme which was known as the training levy has almost completely gone and in its place we have seen any number of half-baked schemes, none of which have come close to matching that which went before. Most companies know what they want at engineering, technician and craft staffing levels, so for pity’s sake get back to giving them the wherewithal to sponsor and train them. All government has to do is give them a bit of support, not tell them what to do! The in-company training schools in large part now have gone but they were very good.
The pointless drive to turn all technical colleges into universities and give everyone a degree no matter what the title has damaged our industry beyond belief, but also forcing companies out of the UK to make things cheaper in the Far East has played a large part and must slowly but surely be reversed. I think it was Thatcher who said that the Far East would have all the low-tech jobs and we the high-tech ones – this is now seen to be laughable.
Unless things are steadily reversed, this country will continue sliding. Banking will not prop up the economy forever and we need to rebuild a strong, proud manufacturing and engineering base from which to generate our wealth.
Ian F Morris, Carters Clay, Hampshire
Navigate a turbulent future by attending Aerospace & Defence (28 November – 2 December). Register for FREE today.
Content published by Professional Engineering does not necessarily represent the views of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.