DIG photo call (too 'hot' to handle?)
DIG photo call (too 'hot' to handle?) NUCLEAR ACCIDENT EXERCISE 'SHORT SERMON 99'
November 22nd - 24th 1999
Operation ‘Short Sermon 99’, the Navy’s three day nuclear submarine accident exercise has been condemned by DIG as unrealistic and seriously flawed. A change in the wind direction simulated during the exercise contradicts previous Navy assertions that only a small sector of the city would be affected by an airborne release of radiation.
The exercise set up to test the nuclear accident emergency response to a release of radiation at Devonport Dockyard had an imaginary nuclear submarine, ‘HMS Tantrum’ catch fire in it’s diesel engine compartment which eventually led to a release of radiation to the atmosphere from the submarines subsequently damaged nuclear reactor.
In 1997, the same exercise at the Navy’s nuclear base at Faslane in Scotland followed a similar accident scenario which resulted in the Navy theoretically firing on one of it’s own submarines in order to sink it below water level to prevent nearby public areas being irradiated. The Navy claimed that this option was available at Plymouth. But DIG has since learned that the Dockyard and River Tamar is too shallow to completely cover a submarine, which at low tide would be exposed. Instead, in operation ‘Short Sermon 99’, the Navy had to resort to covering the stricken submarine with tarpaulins while spraying it with water and allowing the runaway reactor core to cool down naturally (sic)!
“Relying on tarpaulins and hose pipes to avert a nuclear reactor disaster in a city of over 260,000 people is ridiculous and shows that if there was a real nuclear emergency the city would be devastated” DIG spokesperson.
During the three day exercise thousands of leaflets were delivered to a section of Plymouth adjacent to the dockyard to simulate the distribution of Potassium Iodate Tablets. The exercise included 2 Navy fatalities and 19 others injured (sic). A simulated 2km radius exclusion zone was thrown round the base by police with children being kept in nearby schools overnight.
Those orchestrating the exercise altered the direction of the wind during Monday night, causing the nearby town of Torpoint and south east Cornwall to face the oncoming radiation cloud. This has raised speculation that the public will ignore police advice to stay put during an emergency.
“The Navy have always insisted that escaping radiation would be blown in a straight line and in a constant direction. This allows them to predict far fewer residents falling in the path of the radiation cloud. But by admitting that a changing wind could spread radiation over a wider area the exercise planners have inadvertently shown that public protection would fail. Not only would tens of thousands more be placed at risk by the spread of radiation in different directions, but people are not stupid and will try and get out of the area as soon as the first siren goes off. This would cause absolute chaos and would render their plans useless.” DIG spokesperson.
The advice now appears to suggest that on hearing the siren, everyone living around the nuclear base would be safer if they evacuated at the earliest opportunity. DIG have consistently warned that this would be the actual consequence of a real nuclear emergency and is at odds with current emergency planning. This has clear implications for all nuclear sites in Britain.
The Navy’s nuclear accident document, the ‘Devonport Public Safety Scheme (DevPubSafe)’ states that “grounding and collision are the most likely causes of an accident” - but these scenarios are never tested as they could occur outside the dockyard perimeter. However, several such incidents have been narrowly averted in the approach to Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth Sound and the Hamoaze close to the busy city centre.
“As usual the Navy are patting themselves on the back for another successful exercise. But these exercises fail to acknowledge the consequences of a major nuclear accident at Plymouth by ignoring the real potential of an accident outside the dockyard where we know several near misses have occurred in the past. The accident scenarios like Short Sermon are too contrived and tailored to accommodate the resources at hand so that it appears an accident may be successfully dealt with. Unfortunately, the natural outcome will be complacency and over-confidence. The public are just being conned.” DIG spokesperson.
DIG will be raising these and other issues arising from Short Sermon 99 with the Ministry of Defence, the Navy and the local authority’s Nuclear Emergency Officer.
As a voluntary public pressure group and as residents of Plymouth with children who may one day face a real nuclear emergency, we want to learn all we can from this exercise. If you were involved in Short Sermon 99 and have any information at all, please e-mail us at [email protected] or leave a message in confidence at 0881 831579. Thank you for your help.
REACTOR LEAK ON BRITISH SUB OFF PORTUGAL
October 12th 1998
Early reports on Plymouth local radio that the nuclear powered hunter/killer submarine HMS TRENCHANT S91(Trafalgar Class) had ‘broken down’ off the coast of Portugal. First reports said there had been a problem with the propulsion unit (reactor) and that the crew (110) had been taken off the submarine while checks were carried out. It was not clear if the submarine was submerged or on the surface when the incident occurred.
A later report said the submarine was off Lisbon when the problem was detected, that the reactor was not running at the time and that most of the crew (130 this time) were on shore leave when the problem occurred. A report in the evening news confirmed that a small amount of ‘steam’ had escaped from the reactors cooling system which had been contained. It did not say if the steam was from the primary or secondary system. There was reported to be no radiological hazard and a team of engineers had been sent out from Devonport Naval Base (home port to the Second Submarine Squadron). Later report confirmed that the incident occurred on Saturday 10th October. According to a Lisbon paper, the authorities were annoyed by the delay in warning of any problems.
This is the second coolant failure incident in the last 12 months. In November 1997, HMS TURBULENT limped back to Devonport with a suspected coolant escape. All 130 and several dockyard workers were tested for radioactive contamination. HMS TRENCHANT was reported out on patrol on 3rd September 1998. News reports say she returned to Devonport on Tuesday 20th October under her own power for repairs at the Dockyard.
MOD ADMIT 10 RADIATION LEAKS AT DEVONPORT
Oct 1998
Radiation has leaked on 10 occasions at Devonport Dockyard since 1980 according to a recent MoD admission. In a written reply to Lid Dem MP Norman Baker Junior Defence Minister John Spellar listed 50 unintentional radiation leaks from British dockyards since 1980. 33 leaks at the Trident base at Faslane, 7 at Rosyth and 10 at Devonport. The total of three cubic metres of radioactive liquid came mostly from radioactive cooling water from submarine reactors. At Devonport, the worst incident was in 1985 when over a third of a cubic metre of radioactive material was spilled. Although said to be "insignificant" by the minister, DIG are concerned that the admission proves that accidents can and do happen. DIG is to seek further details about the leaks from the MoD.
TRIDENT REFITS TO GO TO USA CLAIM
17th September 1998
Described as “one of the biggest defence shambles”, Britain’s Vanguard (Trident) nuclear submarines may be forced to go to the United States for refit according to an exclusive and damning report in the Scottish Sunday Mail (report by Angus McCloud).
The report revealed that the Government’s nuclear safety licensing body, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, have still not received vital safety reports from Devonport Dockyard about the proposed refit dock and that Devonport dockyard remains “dogged by huge problems”. This supports continued concerns that the docks will not be ready in time for the first Vanguard refit.
After winning the refit contract from Rosyth Royal Dockyard in 1993, Devonport said the docks would be completed for the first refit on HMS Vanguard by the year 2000. That date was changed to 2001, then 2002, now it is unclear when they will be constructed - if at all.
According to the report, emergency plans have been drawn up by the Ministry of Defence to send the submarines to the United States where refit facilities for that size of vessel already exist.
An alternative would be to reduce the number and frequency of patrols by the Vanguard Class submarines to prolong the inter-refit period, which would be deeply embarrassing for the MoD and call into question the relevance of the Vanguard submarines as the declared cornerstone of Britain’s defence policy.
The report also highlights the enormous waste of public money, already lost in half completing the Rosyth Vanguard docks, now set to be repeated at Devonport with a massive refit bill from the United States if the work is transferred.
DIG repeatedly warned that costs would spiral and that major construction issues had not been resolved at the Devonport site when the submarine refit contract was awarded by Defence Minister Malcolm Rifkind in 1993. The tit-for-tat cost cutting battle between Rosyth and Devonport to secure the Plymouth base as the only nuclear submarine refit dockyard in Britain has already backfired as Rosyth is still completing submarine refits such as HMS Spartan and according to reports, still has the ability to refit Trident - at even more expense to the taxpayer.
“The report in the Mail on Sunday confirms rumours we have heard down here that the work has run into difficulty and that safety details have not been resolved. Devonport has begun a programme of modernising some of the refit docks, but not the one allocated for the larger Vanguard (Trident) Class which cannot commence until the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is satisfied on safety. The irony is that Devonport having won the contact is having massive amounts of money pumped in to modernise existing docks as well as being sold off to the American company Brown and Root at a knock down price - now, American companies may again benefit at our expense if the work cannot be done here.”
In a clear counter to the claims, Devonport Management Limited released a hastily put together public relations response describing the current construction progress on other refit docks - omitting to give any details about the Trident dock apart from the hope that work should begin "in a few weeks". According to the national Audit Office Report, work should have begun in March this year already following two years of delays.
DIG EXCLUSIVE : The MoD have categorically denied to DIG that any British submarines can or would be allowed to be refitted in the USA. On behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence, the MoD Ships Support Agency at Bath have issued a strong denial that "there is no question of the Trident submarines being sent to the United States, or anywhere else overseas, for refit. There are no emergency plans in place to do this either." MoD 1st Oct 1998
NEW WEAPONS LOADING JETTY PLANS PUBLICISED
September 1998
DIG are urging caution over the Ministry of Defence’s proposed ammunitioning facility in the River Tamar. The new facility will absorb thousands more residents into the Navy's nuclear accident zone.
The facility, given the name ‘RAFT’ (Remote Ammunitioning Facility Tamar) by the MoD, is due to cost £12.8 million. It is to be sited in the middle of the River Tamar up-river from the nuclear dockyard but closer to the town of Saltash and the communities of Barne Barton and St. Budeaux. The ammunitioning jetty, which will extend from Bull Point at Barne Barton, will load and unload weapons and explosives onto ships and nuclear submarines.
The plans for the facility were revealed by the news media in December 1996, but the MoD have only now begun the development process. The MoD have said that the facility is needed to satisfy weapons loading regulations and nuclear site license requirements which would forbid ammunitioning operations inside the dockyard.
DIG have previously raised concerns over handling weapons and explosives in the dockyard next to nuclear submarines, radioactive waste and inflammable materials and fuels. The response by the MoD is to move the threat further up the River Tamar, effectively expanding the nuclear dockyard and placing thousands more residents within the Navy’s nuclear accident zone.
All residents at Saltash and parts of Barne Barton and St. Budeaux would be forced to live in a nuclear accident zone at greater risk. They would have to store thyroid cancer blocking tablets, keep updated information on surviving a nuclear accident, learn how to protect themselves and their children from a possible radiation release and face ultimate evacuation and relocation should an accident occur.
The Navy have told DIG that there may be restrictions on glazing in some buildings close to the facility which would not survive an explosive blast. Submarines and ships would also have to turn round in the river risking collision and grounding while a 100 metre military exclusion zone would be in force on the public waterway on the days ammunitioning takes place. There could also be unexploded WW2 bombs at the site according to the MoD and 200,000 cubic metres of the river bed will need excavating.
“We want to see the practice of handling explosives and weapons in the dockyard stopped as there is clearly a risk. But the answer is not to simply move the risk up river just so that the MoD do not fall foul of current regulations. We know that the majority of all the dockyard buildings and cranes do not meet existing seismic and blast requirements and this is just a convenient way out but one which ignores the feelings of local residents and places them in greater danger”.
DIG are also aware that the MoD are currently looking for a long term storage site for spent submarine reactor sections from Scotland and they have no means in Devonport of off-loading Trident D5 nuclear missiles from the new Vanguard Class ballistic submarines. Up until the mid ‘80’s Bull Point was a nuclear weapons store.
NUCLEAR SUBMARINE TUG-BOAT SKIPPER SACKED
August 1998
Plymouth tug master James Richmond aged 51 (30 years service - former skipper of HMS Forceful pennant A221, 375 tons, max speed 12 knots, complement 9) has been sacked for gross misconduct after abandoning nuclear submarine HMS Torbay in the River Tamar on 19th January 1998. A final hearing at his unfair dismissal tribunal this month under the chairmanship of ex-Royal Navy Officer Anthony Puttick, ruled that Mr. Richmond had "failed to safeguard the citizens of Plymouth". Richmond's employers, Serco Denholm Ltd., who recently took over the commercial running of tug/escort duties said the potential consequences should the nuclear submarine have lost steering control "did not bear thinking about". It was confirmed that two steering failures have occurred in the last two years on n. subs while entering /leaving port. According to a local press report (Plymouth Evening Herald 25/8/98) 'If a nuclear sub. ran aground there would be a danger that the reactor cooling system would fail and an explosion of devastating proportions could follow'.
Richmond said he had worked more than 100 hours in the week leading up to the incident and since privatisation of the tug service staffing levels had been cut from 14 to 6, doubling the workload. On that morning there was no back-up relief. He said, "I knew what I had done but I was very, very tired". A Rail, Maritime and Transport Union representative said working those hours on commercial merchant ships would be considered illegal. According to the tribunal, fatigue was not considered a mitigating factor!
According to the HSE the Navy have contingency plans in case a tug becomes 'unavailable'. But DIG want to know why tug crews on nuclear submarine escort duty are seemingly worked to exhaustion placing the safety of Plymouth and it's citizens in danger?
NUCLEAR WASTE CONFERENCE 'PROBLEMS IN STORE'
2nd March 1998
Plymouth and DIG were recently represented at a national conference on radioactive waste. The one day conference held at Reading Civic Centre on Wednesday 25th February called 'Problems In Store', followed the collapse in 1997 of the NIREX plans for a national deep disposal facility for nuclear waste at Sellafield.
The conference was attended by groups and council representatives from all over the country to address the persistent problem of what to do with Britains growing radioactive waste as the Government continues to formulate its policy. Military waste like that from nuclear submarine refits at Devonport Dockyard was a particular focus of attention as it is feared that military sites could become nuclear waste dumps in lieu of a national site.
Conference delegates listened to speakers including Professor Sir John Knill who chaired the Governments independent Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RAWMAC) for seven years until 1995; Dr. Helen Wallace of Greenpeace; Jamie Woolley a principal solicitor for Sheffield City Council and legal advisor to the National Steering Committee for Nuclear Free Local Authorities who gave evidence at the 1996 NIREX inquiry; and George Wall a radioactive waste management representative from the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston.
The future provision for the long and short term safe storage of civil and military radioactive wastes were discussed in a series of workshops which highlighted problems of living close to nuclear installations and the fears about health and lack of local democracy. DIG raised the concerns of storing large quantities of radioactive waste close to large urban centres like Plymouth and it was noted that this should be taken into account when the Government considers their radioactive waste policy.
Fears were expressed about the growing evidence of cancer related deaths around military nuclear sites and a suggestion for a national data base on ill health incidence and nuclear locations would be welcomed. Attention was paid to how public trust could be achieved by more openness from the producers of radioactive waste and Plymouth was particularly singled out as a local authority actively engaged in promoting public awareness of nuclear safety issues. DIG were also able to describe the recent welcomed moves by the Navy to engage in more open dialogue with the local communities which could be used as a model at other military nuclear sites.
"DIG was able to put Plymouths case about the problems we have with the Navys nuclear waste very clearly and forcefully. It was obvious from the conference that everyone is now under pressure, the producers of nuclear waste, the regulators of the nuclear industry and the communities that find themselves living with nuclear emissions and facilities on their doorsteps. A national, sustainable solution on what to do with radioactive waste, how and where it should be kept is one that will require wide consultation, cooperation and agreement. The short sighted politically driven solutions put forward by NIREX have failed and we need to move on in partnership to safeguard our environment and health." DIG
Plymouth City was represented by Keith Ellis, the new unitary authority's waste disposal officer.
NUCLEAR SUBMARINES COULD HAVE CAUSED CANCERS
BBC1 Panorama 26th January 1998
A BBC programme broadcast on Monday 26 January included detailed accounts of how several people had contracted cancer from working on nuclear submarines. Former Chief Petty Officer David Hobbs described how for 2 years he drank tea made from water contaminated with radioactivity when he was a reactor operator on HMS Resolution. Later he was soaked with coolant water when they had to drain part of the reactor compartment by hand. On another occasion he was drenched with coolant when working on a valve in the reactor. Today he has two forms of cancer and has returned his long service medal and submarine badge to the Ministry of Defence in protest.
Junior Defence Minister John Spellar admitted during the programme that the Government accepted some individuals who worked on nuclear submarines had high radiation dose levels and had since developed cancers.
The widow of a former dockyards worker at Chatham told how her husband had been covered in radioactive coolant when working on a nuclear submarine. He died from inoperable cancer which he was convinced had been caused by this.
A Fatal Accident Inquiry into the death of an industrial radiographer in the dockyards found that he had died from radiation. A postmortem found he had a whole body dose of 15,000 mSv, the highest known for anyone in Britain. His records only showed a dose of 108 mSv.
There were also accounts from other workers at Chatham dockyard who had been sent back down to work in the reactors on nuclear submarines even after they had accumulated high doses of radiation.
A transcript of the interviews with submariners, dockyard workers and their widows is at: http://ds.dial.pipex.com/cndscot/news/980127.htm
NUCLEAR SUBS SUNK AT DEVONPORT WARNING
7th January 1998
The Government's Nuclear Safety Directorate, part of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, has confirmed in a letter to DIG that the recent mock sinking of a stricken nuclear submarine at Faslane in Scotland could happen at Devonport in the event of a real nuclear disaster.
During a nuclear submarine accident exercise at the submarine base at Faslane in November 1997, the simulated sinking of HMS Sovereign by Naval gunfire was considered the best option to stabilise the emergency. According to the Nuclear Safety Directorate, the submarine was theoretically sunk by gunfire, "...in order to reduce the amount of airborne radioactive material released from it, and so reduce the radiation dose to the public".
DIG asked the Nuclear Inspectorate if they supported the idea of sinking a nuclear submarine by gunfire at Devonport Dockyard within the city boundary of Plymouth. The Nuclear Directorate's guarded double negative reply that "The Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) has no reason to believe that the decision was not the best decision in the circumstances of the exercise", (letter dated 23rd December 1997), only raises further doubts about what the NII would consider the best decision to deal with a submarine on fire and leaking radiation in the middle of a city!
According to the Nuclear Safety Directorate, the decision to risk sinking the submarine while in port was apparently taken after, "a number of solutions were considered", non of which are identified by the NII.
In their letter, the NII point out that there are a number of important differences between Faslane and Devonport. DIG are quite aware that the most important one being that Faslane is a sparsely populated, remote Naval Base while Devonport is within the densely populated city of Plymouth! And yet the Nuclear Directorate remains content to allow the Navy to consider such drastic action. Incredibly, the Nuclear Directorate further admit that although they were present during the Faslane exercise they were not consulted.
"This is a totally shocking admission by the government body meant to uphold nuclear safety. It is clear that in the event of a nuclear accident, the Ministry of Defence will have a totally free hand and will do whatever they want to try and get themselves out of trouble. Deliberately sinking a nuclear submarine by gunfire at Devonport Dockyard would be an unimaginable catastrophe and yet we now know this is a real option. At a navy base with munitions, fuel lines and radioactive materials all around, firing on a submarine already releasing radiation could only make it worse by increasing the risk of fire and explosion. With no barrier or safety zone between the nuclear dockyard and tens of thousands of people the environmental and health effects would be devastating. The city could be wiped out." DIG.
Following the Faslane exercise, DIG seriously doubt the Navy's ability to cope with a major nuclear disaster. In 1999 the Navy intend to hold a Faslane scale exercise at Devonport and DIG are urgently asking the MoD what they think the environmental and public health consequences of sinking a submarine by gunfire would be to the city of Plymouth.
EXERCISE KISMET '97 NUCLEAR ACCIDENT EXERCISE
Devonport Dockyard Plymouth Nuclear Accident Exercise
Exercise Kismet ‘97 Wednesday 26th November 1997
Two civilian observers (a local school governor and a city councillor) were allowed to monitor the ‘paper’ exercise at Crownhill Police Station and were able to describe some of the events. Other information is gleaned from press and TV reports. Sequences are correct as far as possible. Apart from the distribution of leaflets by Navy personnel to some houses, the exercise was on paper only.
Began : 8.00 am
Ended : 12.30 pm same day (i.e. 4.5 hours duration)
Accident Scenario : Gas cylinder explodes in/alongside (not certain) fictitious Trafalgar Class SSN HMS ‘Trouble’. HMS Trouble is alongside Wharf 8 on the River Tamar side of the refit basin (5 Basin). (i.e. furthest from the public). It is ready to make way when the incident occurs. A number of other submarines were shown in and around 5 Basin on plans. On an information board, the submarine plant state was shown as ‘A’ (when the pressure and temperature are at or near to normal operational condition. The reactor may be operating or shut down).
At 8.45 am the incident is reported as becoming serious and a Category 1 alert is given (i.e. an event which is likely to lead to, or has resulted in, the release of fission products from the fuel - DevPubSafe). It is possible that the warning sirens would have been sounded at this point.
At 9.00 am dockyard personnel are told to take shelter and in due course evacuated by bus.
At 9.20 am the first official public press report is released.
Teams of leaflet distributors (c.26 Navy personnel) begin posting leaflets (to simulate Potassium Iodate Tablets [PIT’s]) through doors close to the dockyard. During this time, the incident reached Category 3 (i.e. an event which has led to the release of fission products from the fuel to the environment outside the pressure hull - DevPubSafe). It is uncertain at what point the dockyard warning siren was meant to have been sounded (in reality it was not sounded as in some previous exercises - presumably because people might think a real accident had taken place as there was no prior public warning of the exercise).
A ‘neat’ radiation plume drifted over the immediate residential districts of Weston Mill, Kings Tamerton and Ham. However, it was noted by the observers that the Navy's large wall map was wrong and at least one district was incorrectly named. This was pointed out to the Navy. Plymouth City Council’s Chief Executive also asked why the districts were not named on the Navy’s wall map, but were given numbers instead and thought this may have led to the confusion.
One school (Weston Mill) appeared to be in the path of the radiation cloud and was theoretically ‘evacuated’ at 9.30 am. A second Navy press bulletin was released at 11.00 am, but created some confusion as they had put out the same alert as their 9.20 bulletin by mistake.
Two more schools appeared to be on the 'edge' of the cloud (Drake Primary and Barne Barton) and it was thought they would have been instructed to take PIT's.
Evacuation was discussed and a number of locations were identified as possible evacuation centres, including schools, a motel on the outskirts of the city (Novotel) a number of holiday parks in Cornwall and at a local teacher training college (College of St. Mark & St. John). The big Granada petrol station over the Tamar Bridge past Saltash in Cornwall was identified by Caradon's (Cornwall) Emergency Officer as a mustering point for coaches to ferry evacuees into Cornwall. Four military camps were identified as other possible evacuation locations. It was also thought that residents who needed evacuating and had relatives in other parts of the city could go to them. It was expected that sheltering could be up to 8 hours duration and that evacuees could be away for up to 72 hours. It was pointed out by the school governor observer that some schools had no canteen facilities on site and wondered how children would be fed. It was also noticed that the scenario gave a wind direction coming from the SW whereas on the day it was actually blowing from the SE!
Although there were few casualties, it was proposed that an area in Central Park in Plymouth could be used for casualty clearance and triage. Reports on the information boards showed that by 11.50 am there were 5 casualties, only one of which occurred on HMS Trouble. The other casualties were dockyard personnel who were taken to the Royal Naval Sick Quarters (RNSQ) at the shorebased HMS Drake. There were no civilian casualties. By 12.04 pm a total of 6 casualties were recorded.
The teams distributing the mock PIT’s which started at 9.20 am completed their task 2 hours 16 minutes later by 11.36 am. The Navy had said they could distribute within one hour. However, observers said the teams were already in position before the signal to distribute PIT’s and knew beforehand where the radiation cloud would go. They also chose the closest streets to the dockyard which are mainly terraced houses and would be the easiest to deliver to. The distributors were not wearing any form of protection such as the paper face masks the Navy recently said would be issued to them in an emergency. The observers wondered what purpose the distribution exercise served when it was so contrived and stage managed.
The observers were not allowed to go into the Gold room where the top level briefings took place. A news camera team were allowed to film for a few minutes in the Gold room but were not allowed to record sound.
A final signal came at 12.30 denoting the end of the exercise and that ‘all objectives’ had been successfully accomplished. No mention of possible civilian casualties from radiation contamination or of post-accident decontamination or clean up was made.
ENDS
NUCLEAR SUB SUNK BY SHELLFIRE IN ACCIDENT EXERCISE
21st November 1997
It has been revealed that Navy chiefs ordered the mock 'sinking' of a nuclear submarine by shellfire during the recent 'Short Sermon' nuclear submarine accident exercise at Faslane in Scotland.
The exercise which took place at the nuclear submarine base at Faslane from 17th to 20th November supposed that the nuclear powered submarine HMS Sovereign had caught fire which developed into a serious release of radiation. The levels of gamma radiation supposedly coming from the submarine resulted in all the crew and emergency workers evacuating the submarine. As the exercise developed it was decided that it would be impossible to approach the stricken vessel and the decision was taken to sink it by Naval gunfire, the idea being that the sea water would act as a natural radiation shield.
Despite several hours elapsing from the start of the exercise to the order to sink the submarine, the emergency response teams were unable to control the situation and had to resort to drastic measures. In reality such action would have resulted in major environmental contamination and the possibility that the radioactive contents of the submarine could have spread all over Scotland and beyond. It is understood that the governments nuclear safety advisers and inspectors, the National Radiological Protection Board and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate were said to be "horrified" by the Admiralty decision to shell the submarine.
A second much smaller nuclear accident exercise is due take place at Devonport Dockyard on Wednesday 26th November.
The annual exercise, given the codename 'Kismet', aims to test procedures employed in the event of an accident involving a nuclear submarine at the Submarine Refit Complex. Previous exercises have made believe that a fictitious submarine has been hit by a light aircraft carrying members of the news media (!). Predictably, the accident is always 'contained' with no adverse effects to the surrounding city. DIG believes such a scenario is unrealistic of a major disaster, fails to recognise a 'worst case' accident involving the meltdown of a submarine reactor or an uncontrollable situation as at Faslane and is based on a series of flawed assumptions. As always the public play no part in the exercise despite the fact that a nuclear accident would affect thousands of ordinary Plymouth residents.
At a public community liaison meeting in October this year, the Navy admitted that they had no finalised nuclear emergency plans. Yet their annual exercises are always officially heralded as a huge success by the Navy.
Following the results of the Faslane exercise, DIG seriously doubt the Navy's ability to cope with a major nuclear disaster in the city of Plymouth. Only this month, HMS Turbulent, which actually caught fire in 1992 at Devonport Dockyard with a full weapons payload and crew on board, limped into Devonport after reactor coolant escaped. All the crew were tested for radiation exposure and the sub sealed for further investigation.
"Deliberately sinking a nuclear submarine by gunfire at Devonport Dockyard would be an unimaginable catastrophe and yet we now know this is a real option. The Faslane exercise has clearly shown that nuclear emergency plans would be quite useless when faced with such a desperate situation". DIG
For further comment and information tel. 0881 831579 (pager) or 01752 337482 / 233609
For further comment from Scotland tel. John Ainslie at Scottish CND 0141 4231222 & Faslane Peace Camp 01436 820901
Report in Plymouth Sunday Independent Nov. 16th 1997
Exclusive
More than 130 sailors have taken emergency tests after a nuclear scare on board a West Country based submarine.
The men were trapped on HMS Turbulent when radioactive coolant started leaking, writes James Wickham.
The crew carrying out post-refit trials in the North Atlantic, were able to bring the fault under control and keep the reactor running as they returned to Devonport Docks.
A Royal Navy spokesman said, "They have done various tests to personnel and some of the people went up to Derriford Hospital. Of course anything like this is going to be of concern. The safety of the people on board is vitally important."
All tests on Royal Navy personnel came back negative. The leak was contained within a specially designed unmanned area. The seven workers from DML (Devonport Management Limited, private owners of Devonport Royal Dockyard), which carried out the refuel and refit before the ship went to sea, are all said to be safe.
Reg Shields, head of corporate affairs for DML, said, "The problem with the reactor is still being investigated before they can fix it. The MoD are running that programme."
The Royal Navy spokesman said people in Plymouth had nothing to fear from the faulty submarine, part of the Second Submarine Squadron based in Devonport.
But nuclear engineer John Large, who advises Friends of the Earth, said the Royal Navy might be playing the incident down, "As soon as the primary coolant circuit goes wrong alarm bells start to ring. It can be pretty uncomfortable in there at that time. The problem with a submarine is that you have nowhere to go. It sounds like a serious incident, but until the MoD release details, which they won't, we won't know."
Steven Lemin, Labour councillor for Plymouth's Keyham ward, was disturbed that the public had not been informed.
Damaging
"They said people were safe in the Gulf War, but now we find out they were given damaging drugs by their own people. They said people were safe in the Pacific when they tested the H-Bomb. Now they are dying of cancer. This proves what we've been saying - nuclear submarines need to be abandoned altogether, or treated with more openness."
The Royal Navy said there had been no leakage into the atmosphere, and no need to inform the public.
ENDS
Background Info:
HMS Turbulent S110, Trafalgar Class, completed 1984
Recently entered Devonport 7.30am on 7th Nov. 1997 following post refit trials.
Underwent Power Range Tests (PRT) at Devonport following refit Nov. 1996
April 1992 caught fire at Devonport while making way with full crew and weapons.
Electric switch room fire next to reactor. 22 sailors/workers overcome by smoke
Navy said minor incident. Two officers given highest bravery awards for shutting reactor down. Local authority not informed of fire.
HARWELL STUDY WARNS OF GENETIC TIME-BOMB
A startling new study by top Harwell scientists in Oxfordshire indicates that even very low doses of radiation exposure could cause long term genetic damage together with a host of health defects and diseases passed on to future generations.
The study, recently featured in the New Scientist magazine (11th Oct. 1997), will lead to further calls for drastic cuts in radiation dose exposures for nuclear workers. The recent findings from the Medical Research Council at Harwell predicts a "poisoning of the human gene pool" and described it as, "A horrifying concept" according to the MRC scientists.
The latest scientific research indicates that very low levels of radiation could damage cells leading to 'genomic instability'. DNA structures could mutate for generations, causing cancers, fetus defects, deformed limbs, cleft palates and brain disorders. The chromosome damage from even the lowest dose possible from a single alpha particle could be "effectively infinite". The findings have been backed up by six other laboratories around the world who have found similar results, the report adds.
The study supports the controversial findings of Prof. Martin Gardner from Southampton University in 1990, that the children and grandchildren of radiation workers run a higher than normal risk of contracting leukaemia.
There could be serious implications for nuclear submarine workers at Devonport Dockyard exposed to sources of gamma and alpha radiation. A number of cases have already come to light at the former refit dockyard at Chatham in Kent where ex- radiation workers have developed cancers and died. The Ministry of Defence has recently begun a health counselling scheme for worried ex-workers and their families.
"This could be far worse than asbestos in it's long term damage. At a recent local liaison meeting the Navy publicly admitted that it was now accepted that, "any exposure to radiation increased the risk of contracting cancer" (Capt. Peter Hurford RN). The latest findings could condemn dockyard workers who routinely receive occupational radiation doses to permanent genetic damage. Once the DNA becomes corrupted by exposure to tiny amounts of radiation, subsequent generations may inherit a time-bomb of diseases and malformaties - it is a nightmare scenario." Kevin Owen, Chairman DIG
DIG are currently pressing for greater cooperation between Rochester (Chatham) and Plymouth (Devonport) on health counselling for present and past radiation workers and have asked the government to make sure that all possible help and advice is available to workers and their families at Devonport.
NUCLEAR PLANS OR WHITEHALL FARCE?
Community Liaison Meeting October 21st 1997.
At a community liaison meeting at Devonport, Plymouth, the Navy outlined their latest plans to counter a nuclear accident at the nuclear submarine base and refit yard. Sited right next to tens of thousands of houses, the nuclear dockyard is in the middle of the most populated area south west of Bristol. Any release of radiation would have devastating consequences for the inhabitants and environment.
Yet the Navy now plan to reduce emergency resources to a much smaller area of the city using as few resources as possible. Twelve months ago the Navy stated that a small army of 200 'military personnel' would be on hand to deliver thyroid cancer blocking Potassium Iodate Tablets in the event of an accident. Now the Base Safety Officer told the meeting that fifty sailors wearing paper face masks will be "nominated" (sic) to run round the city streets posting tablets and leaflets.
City councillors at the meeting were shocked by the haphazard plans and doubted if many residents would even be able to understand the complicated leaflets. When asked if the tablet distributors would wear their paper face masks all the time, the Navy replied, "only if and when a release of radiation occurred, and then they will be warned by sounding the dockyard emergency siren a second time". Unfortunately, residents have been told that hearing a second siren would signal the all clear!
DIG asked about evacuation. The Navy said it was the responsibility of the local authority. The local authority replied it was the police's job to organise evacuation. The police inspector at the meeting had no comment!
A respected local community leader told news reporters present at the meeting that the plans resembled a Whitehall farce.
A full transcript of notes taken at the meeting is available from DIG (post or e.mail) on request from [email protected]
Plymouth (UK) nuclear Dump Information Group (DIG) has called for all past and present radiation workers at Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth to have full access to health counselling after a report by Rochester Upon Medway highlighted health concerns for ex-nuclear submarine refit workers at Chatham in Kent.
DIG has urged Plymouth City Council to collaborate and consult with Rochester since the Ministry of Defence announced their proposed radiation health counselling service for ex-Chatham workers last month (June 97).
In an appeal to the Leader of Rochester City Council, DIG asked for closer links on the radiation poisoning issue as a number of Chatham workers transferred to Devonport when Chatham closed in 1984. Leader of Rochester City Council, John Shaw, has confirmed they will pursue the radiation monitoring of workers after it was revealed by the MoD that medical records had not been kept or had been lost.
A letter from the Ministry of Defence to Plymouth Member of Parliament David Jamieson describes how radiation dose records will be `reconstructed' where records do not exist. DIG are critical of this attempt to `fabricate' radiation doses for dockyard workers which may lead to misleading information and advice.
`Workers who refitted nuclear submarines at Chatham are now dying of cancer. Some Chatham workers moved to Plymouth to do exactly the same kind of work. We are now expected to believe there were two radiation standards, one for Devonport and a lower one for Chatham - we find this hard to believe! We want all radiation workers to benefit from the same level of health counselling and for their medical records to be available to those at risk.
The cover ups and ignorance shown towards dockyard asbestos workers in the past who are now dying from cancers must not be repeated for those now and previously exposed to radiation at Devonport as part of their daily work.'
DIG QUIZ NEW LABOUR GOVERNMENT ON SCRAPPED SUBS
Plymouth nuclear Dump Information Group has written to the Government's new Secretary of State for Defence, George Robertson MP, asking if there will be a review of the MoD's current practice of scrapping nuclear powered submarines and reactors in the city of Plymouth.
Four scrapped nuclear submarines are currently stored afloat at Devonport Dockyard (Warspite, Conqueror, Courageous and Valiant). Three of the submarines have had their spent fuel removed with Valiants still in place, leaving their highly contaminated reactors intact, with radioactive waste remaining on board.
The Navy have recently confirmed to DIG that all subsequent decommissionings will be undertaken at Devonport and moving the 7 scrapped submarines from Rosyth, including the now redundant Polaris boats, has not been ruled out. Plymouth could end up with over 20 scrapped nuclear submarines dumped in the city.
It has been estimated that each scrapped submarine, not counting the spent fuel, contains around 160 tonnes of radioactive waste.
This will make Plymouth the MoD's national radioactive waste dump and DIG want assurances from the new Labour administration that long term storage within the city is not going to be allowed to continue without a review of all the options.
Last year, Defence Minister Michael Portillo gave assurances that the national NIREX deep radioactive waste depository at Sellafield would be available to take the waste arising from the scrapped submarines by 2012. Since the NIREX plan was rejected just before the general election, it is unclear what the Government now intend to do with the growing number of worn out nuclear submarines.
DIG favour removal of the submarines to a secure remote coastal site with the prospect of storing the reactor sections of the submarines intact in dry, above ground, monitorable conditions at either a new designated site or at an existing civil nuclear location well away from any centre of population. DIG want the Government to instigate a study to examine the options for the long term disposal/storage of the Navy's nuclear legacy.
"The old governments attitude was one of dithering uncertainty over the eventual fate of these radioactive relics. When their plans to sea dump these hulks was blocked by international treaty, their only alternative was to dump them in Plymouth and Rosyth in the forlorn hope that NIREX would come up with a solution. This short sighted and unlikely plan represented a sad dereliction of responsibility to the people and environment of Plymouth. Now, we expect this problem to be faced head on by the new Government and we will be seeking a resolution as soon as possible." Kevin Owen, Chairman DIG
LATEST : New Labour Government say there are currently no plans to move scrapped subs. from Rosyth down to Devonport (June 1997)
NAVY OPENS DIALOGUE WITH DIG ON NUCLEAR SAFETY
On March 24th DIG were invited to a head to head meeting with senior Navy safety officers and Devonport Management Ltd's (DML) top Director of safety. During the three and a half hour long meeting DIG chairman Kevin Owen discussed the nuclear site expansion programme, the work required to bring the proposed Trident refit dock up to current seismic standards, the implications of the recent privatisation deal with US company Brown & Root, public safety measures and the siting of a new weapons loading facility. A tour of the nuclear complex included the nuclear accident command centre and radiation accident monitoring building. "It was a useful and open meeting, with the Navy prepared to discuss and listen to our concerns on a number of important issues. DIG were able to make a number of suggestions and observations which were acknowledged during the discussions." Kevin Owen Chairman DIG.
DIG will be following up with an appraisal of the visit and hope to encourage and sustain further direct contact with DML and the Navy.
DOCKYARD EXPANSION COSTS REVEALED
DML Director Rick Crawford has told DIG that the final construction costs of the Trident refit docks and nuclear site expansion is between £320 million and £340 million. Reports have suggested the price could climb as high as £500 million and Mr. Crawford emphasised that considerable penalties would be incurred if the construct project failed to keep within 5 years. It was also revealed that the privatisation tender did not now include the construction of a Trident 'contingency' berth. Any emergency maintenance would be carried out at the dockside at the Rosyth dockyard in Scotland or at the floating submarine dock at Faslane.
Previous report - taken from Sunday Times 16/2/97
"Trident Docks Cost Soars by £120 million "(UK pounds sterling)
UK Ministry of Defence refuse to disclose cost of proposed trident refit facility at Devonport Plymouth. But price thought to be 360 million pounds. Concern that new owners will be unable to complete construction work on time. Delay in signing of sell-off agreement thought to be due to UK government insisting costs be reduced to 320 million after DML said it would cost 400 million. Massive cost overrun will expose government to criticism when privatisation comes before the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (although by then we are likely to have had a change of government). It is believed Devonport was chosen for Trident refits despite massive costs in an attempt by the Conservative Government to retain a number of marginal seats in the SW of England. Labour say now contracts have been signed they will not attempt to reverse the decision to build Trident docks at Devonport.
NATIONAL WASTE DUMP ABANDONED - IT'S OFFICIAL
17th March 1997- British governments Environment Minister, John Gummer, has officially rejected plans for the proposed national deep radioactive waste facility at Sellafield in Cumbria. Following a leaked memo from one of NIREX's chief scientists a few weeks earlier it was clear the scientific arguments for the facility had failed. Consequently, NIREX have no alternative option. This means radioactive waste producers will be forced to retain their waste on site for the foreseeable future. The navy planned to dispose of their decommissioned nuclear submarines and reactors at the facility, but now they have no alternative but to let them build up at Plymouth and Rosyth. The navy have confirmed that all further scrapped nuclear submarines will come to Plymouth. Both the Conservatives and Labour say a deep disposal site must be found, there is little possibility that any community in Britain will welcome such a facility.
DIG has been strongly critical of the deep disposal plans and predicted their failing. Storing large quantities of highly radioactive waste in a city close to munitions, high explosives, fuels and in close proximity to the most densely populated area in the south west of England must not be a long term option and DIG will be putting renewed pressure on government to address this urgent issue.
PLYMOUTH STUCK WITH NAVY'S NUCLEAR WASTE FOR YEARS
Source : Plymouth Evening Herald 18/1/97
Reporter : Michael Winders
Headline : Stuck for years with the N-subs
Sub Head : Key is national waste strategy
PLYMOUTH will be lumbered with four pensioned off nuclear submarines for years to come unless the Government agrees to rethink it's strategy for disposing of radioactive waste, campaigners warned today.
Anti-nuclear activists in the city spoke out amid reports that a £2 billion project to build an underground storage facility in Cumbria may have to be abandoned.
There are four decommissioned submarines - Conqueror, Courageous, Warspite and Valiant - stockpiled at Devonport Naval Base.
Out of the four boats, Conqueror, Courageous and Warspite have been defuelled, but Valiant still contains its fuelling rods.
Defence Secretary Michael Portillo revealed last year that the four would have to stay until the Nirex depository at Sellafield was ready to take nuclear waste.
That in any case would have meant the vessels being laid up in Plymouth, just a stone's throw away from a major population centre, until 2012 at the earliest.
But in a leaked memo passed to Cumbria County Council, Nirex's director of science admitted the company could 'struggle to make a case' for the proposed site because of fears it didn't meet the necessary safety requirements.
Dr John Holmes threw the whole future of the costly project- into turmoil when he warned that up to 100 times more data was required to establish whether ground water could eventually bring radioactivity back to the surface.
Kevin Owen, chairman of Plymouth Dumping Information Group (DIG), said the revelations came as no surprise because the Sellafield site had been chosen purely on political and not scientific grounds.
He said: "In the meantime, we are left with the waste and no prospect of it going anywhere.
"Military waste is already at the bottom of the pecking order and this just shows the breathless incompetence of the nuclear industry."
He urged the Government to abandon its policy of favouring the underground dumping option and endorse the only practical alternative - storing the waste in dry conditions above ground on the site of a disused civil power station.
Mr Owen said: "It could be properly monitored then. The land can't be used for anything else anyway and I think the Government will eventually come round to that way of thinking."
ENDS
Source : Western Morning News 17/1/97
Headline : Nuclear waste concerns MP
A WESTCOUNTRY MP is demanding a statement from Defence Secretary Michael Portillo on the future of four disused nuclear submarines at Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth.
The call by David Jamieson, Labour MP for Plymouth Devonport, follows a leaked memo which said the proposed disposal site for radioactive waste from the submarines - in Sellafield in Cumbria - may be geologically unsuitable.
Mr Portillo has said the waste will be dumped at a new Nirex storage facility in Sellafield, sometime after 2012.
Mr Jamieson said yesterday: "We want to know what is the medium to long-term future of the high-level radioactive waste that is currently stored in Plymouth Sound."
ENDS
Controversy surrounds the Governments announcement on Tuesday 11th February to sell off Britains largest Navy docks and nuclear submarine base to an American owned company. The news came after almost two years of negotiations with the American owned Brown & Root which is controlled by the US Halliburton Holdings. At a knock-down price of only £40.3 million, the sell-off is being heralded as a give-away. The Government refuse to divulge the details of the deal with Devonport Management Limited (DML), though it is known their American parent company Brown & Root stepped in in April 1996 to bale out the privatisation deal as costs for rebuilding the dockyard and Trident refit facilities climbed from £237 million to an estimated £500 million. The deal came only weeks before the Government announced the date of the General Election on May 1st and both sides will have been keen to reach a final agreement. Speculation is on who put pressure on who and who gained?
NAVY AMMO JETTY PUTS THOUSANDS AT RISK
The Navy's proposal to build a rearming jetty 1 km upriver from the nuclear Submarine Refit Complex for ammunitioning warships and nuclear submarines is causing further concern. It has been revealed that the reason behind the plans is due to an assessment of buildings at the Complex and their ability to withstand explosive blast overpressures in the event of an accident. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate have told DIG that, "the NII is concerned with all situations which could pose a potential hazard to nuclear activities within the (nuclear) licensed site at Devonport. It is beginning discussions with the licensee, DML, on the potential hazard posed by weapons and explosives." NII 11/2/97. In an attempt to appease the NII the Navy plan to shift the problem further upriver close to the town of Saltash and opposite housing estates on the Plymouth side of the River Tamar.
DIG has found out that an assessment is underway to discover if current buildings and facilities at the nuclear Submarine Refit Complex meet current seismic standards (see DIG Informer). According to both the Navy and the NII, they will be left with 3 options. 1. Downgrade existing facilities (cranes etc.), 2. rebuild to current seismic standards or 3. demolish. All 3 options will incur significant costs. As yet it is unclear who will bear the costs, the new dockyard company or if the new private owners will be subsidised by the British taxpayer (but we can guess).
New concrete dock gates recently constructed at the nuclear submarine refit basin at Devonport Dockyard's 10 Dock were found to have defects after moulds were removed.
The cost of repairs to the new gates will be footed by DML and the civil engineering company Kier Construction.