Latest Issues at a Glance
including.......
RECYCLED RADIATION
A new European Directive which is due to be incorporated into British law in May 2000 seeks to 'deregulate'the disposal, incineration, reuse and recycling of radioactive materials below new threshold levels. In a desperate attempt to hide the ever growing mountain of nuclear waste, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of radioactive contaminated materials will be declassified by mixing it with non radioactive scrap and may find it's way into recycled manufacturing materials, animal feedstocks and fertilizer, consumer goods or dumped at landfill sites all over the country. Radioactive waste from Devonport Dockyard already tipped on local landfill sites could dramatically increase while radioactive contaminated metals, glass and plastics from refits and the growing number of redundant nuclear submarines at Devonport Dockyard could be salvaged and sold on as scrap. A national coordinated campaign to oppose the Directive has begun by alerting MP's, MEP's, and local authorities. DIG are concerned that radioactive waste from Devonport Dockyard will be introduced into the environment as scrap material or dumped at local land fill sites.
GENETIC TIME BOMB IN RADIATION CANCER LINK
Radiation workers routinely exposed to low level radiation could face a genetic time-bomb, according to Medical Research Council scientists at Harwell. Radiation could mutate DNA structures for generations, causing cancers, fetus defects, deformed limbs, cleft palates and brain disorders. Nuclear submarine radiation workers exposed to gamma and alpha radiation would be at most risk. According to the 'New Scientist', the findings, backed up by six other laboratories around the world, are described as "horrifying" by the Harwell scientists who warn that the human gene pool may become poisoned and infinitely damaged. A number of workers at the former submarine refit yard at Chatham have already developed cancers and died and the Ministry of Defence has recently begun health counselling for worried ex-radiation workers and their families. According to a further study by the governments nuclear safety advisors, the National Radiological Protection Board, nuclear workers carry an increased risk of passing cancer to their children. Women radiation workers are 11 times more likely to pass the risk on to their children. The NRPB report says the increased risks are not linked to the size of radiation dose, but remain "significant" and for the first time all cancers among children and not just leukaemia are identified. Experts remain divided on the link between radiation workers and cancer. Some say it may be viral, while others point to alpha radiation as the culprit which is not measured by workers' film badges. DIG is currently calling for a survey of cancer deaths, genetic damage and instances of ill health among radiation workers and their children at Devonport Dockyard.
DIG has made contact with the City Council of Kaliningrad, a Russian Federation military port on the Baltic coast. They are keen to establish a link with Plymouth City Council on public nuclear safety. According to Kaliningrad councillors, they are not told what risks their population faces by nearby nuclear facilities and feel remote from the decision makers in Moscow. As a coastal city and nuclear port Plymouth offers many similarities and Kaliningrad is eager to exchange and share public nuclear safety information.
"Radiation protection apparatus will not be worn", was the statement previously issued by the Navy that in the event of a nuclear accident their Potassium Iodate Tablet distributors would require no protective equipment. But now, in an about-turn, Navy safety chiefs admit 'face masks' will be worn to protect their personnel. DIG criticised the lack of protection available to sailors tasked with tablet distribution duty as it was suspected that they were trying to deflect attention away from the possibility of their personnel being ordered onto Plymouth streets contaminated with radiation. Although the tablet posters would now be issued with face masks, as demonstrated at the October Community Liaison Meeting, they are only made of paper and held in place with elastic string. DIG seriously question the paper masks effectiveness against the 200 radionuclides the Navy admit may escape during a nuclear accident! The Navy reassure that their personnel would only wear them if an actual release of radiation occurred and would be alerted by a second blast of the emergency sirens. But the Navy fail to explain how residents sheltering in their homes, would not mistake the second siren for the 'all-clear', which could lead to thousands of people back on the streets just when radiation is heading their way.
COOPERATION ON DOCKYARD NUCLEAR EXPOSURE
DIG has been at the forefront in forging links between Rochester Upon Medway City Council and Plymouth City Council in order that all former and current radiation workers have access to special medical health counselling. The Mayor of Rochester, who's ex-dockyard worker husband died of cancer, has told DIG that they will be exchanging information with Plymouth City Council on the new health advisory scheme. DIG appealed directly to the Mayor of Rochester seeking closer cooperation on the radiation poisoning issue as a number of ex- Chatham workers moved to Devonport when it closed in 1984. A report recently commissioned by Rochester on the health implications for former nuclear workers at the nearby Chatham Dockyard revealed that medical records had not been kept or had disappeared. Since the closure of Chatham a number of submarine refit workers have developed cancers and died.
Radio 4's 'Face the Facts' programme, broadcast in November 97, highlighted the sad plight of dockyard radiation workers who have developed or died of cancer. The programme reported how some workers were used as 'sponges' to soak up radiation doses on nuclear submarines so that work could continue. One worker, drenched with radioactive water later died of cancer. Because he was not an accredited nuclear worker no dose records were kept. A refit worker at Devonport developed leukaemia and remains terrified that the cancer will kill him. Another ex-worker was diagnosed as having leukaemia despite his dose records showing he was within so called 'permissible' limits. A leading nuclear expert from America who had written a report for the US Atomic Energy Commission told the programme that as long ago as 1969 he warned that the accepted 'tolerable' dose would result in a doubling of cancers and that 'tolerable' was not the same as 'safe'. This information must have been available to the British, but was ignored.
A contender for the 1997 'Nukespeak' prize must be Junior Defence Minister John Spellar when asked by the BBC about the mysterious disappearance of radiation worker dose records. The Junior Defence Minister was able to confirm that the delay in producing the vital records was due to the MoD "trying to consolidate the information" and that �1.1 million was earmarked to produce a new database for the absconding records. He was also pleased to announce that records which did not exist are to be "reconstructed" (?) - no doubt showing them well within 'tolerable' limits.
During the November '97 nuclear accident exercise 'Short Sermon' at the nuclear submarine base at Faslane in Scotland, the Navy gave the order to sink the supposed stricken submarine HMS Sovereign by Navy gunfire. In the exercise, radiation was meant to be pouring out of the sub which was too hazardous to approach, so the Navy pretended to sink it while in port to allow the sea to act as a natural radiation shield. Observers from the governments Nuclear Inspectorate were said to be "horrified" at the Navy's decision. However, the NII have now told DIG that they would be "content " to have the Navy sink a sub in similar circumstances at Devonport - they also confirm that they were not consulted during the Faslane exercise!
If sunk for real the sub would have seriously contaminated the Clyde and done untold environmental damage - even supposing the Navy's aim was accurate and they hadn't hit the reactor compartment! It is now frighteningly clear that deliberate 'sinking by gunfire' in the event of a nuclear accident while in port is a real option. In 1999 the Navy intend to hold a similar exercise at Devonport. DIG are anxious to learn from the Navy what they think the consequences of sinking a submarine by shellfire would be on public health, the environment and the city.
People should be warned to "stay away from windows" in the event of a nuclear accident at Devonport Dockyard, according to the Navy at a recent Community Liaison Meeting. Keeping away from windows would lessen the exposure from a passing radiation cloud. The Navy told the meeting that although their emergency zone goes out to 2km from the dockyard, contamination could spread much further and MAFF may warn people not to pick or eat food beyond 2km. During the 'Short Sermon' exercise at Faslane theoretical food restrictions were in place over 100 km from the accident! Even after a radiation cloud has passed, residents could still face contamination from radioactive dust and deposits on the ground say the Navy experts.
Devonport also had a simulated nuclear submarine accident exercise in November '97- though much smaller than Faslane's. Lasting only four and a half hours, the Navy tested their plans to deliver simulated Potassium Iodate Tablets to nearby houses. Despite claiming they could deliver tablets under one hour, it took the Navy over two and a quarter hours to post the mock tablets. Even having more distributors per number of households than they would have in a real emergency, knowing in advance the number and location of houses and distributing in daylight in good weather, they failed to meet their own targets. In reality this would have meant children receiving a dose of radioactive iodine without any protection. Plymouth City Council remain unanimous in their call for the Local Health Authority to pre-distribute tablets. They prefer to leave the onerous task to the Navy. Perhaps they should now reconsider!
Exercise Kismet '97 lasted for only four and a half hours. The exercise concluded at 12.30 pm with the signal that all objectives had been accomplished. However, the exercise included the mock release of radiation to the public. A radiation cloud would have deposited contaminated material over a wide area of Devonport. Residents would have ingested particles of radiation and there would have been significant disruption to the area and city. A nuclear submarine had caught fire and had sustained serious damage which resulted in a release of radiation. Casualties occurred during the exercise and people and schools were evacuated. All these issues at the conclusion of the exercise were ignored and left unresolved. In the event of a real nuclear accident, the post accident recovery and decontamination could be even more disruptive than the actual incident. It is difficult to see how the public can have confidence in nuclear accident planning when the aftermath is conveniently ignored.
During a meeting with the Navy in April 1997, DIG were told that the Bull Point Weapons loading jetty was needed to meet new safety standards and nuclear licensing regulations which precluded weapons and explosives being handled close to large numbers of people or close to buildings which would not withstand blast overpressures and contained a lot of glazing. In a letter dated 21st January 1997, the Captain Base Safety stated that the, "application of more rigorous standards for the future mean a RAFT [Remote Ammunitioning Facility Tamar] will be necessary to meet impending explosive and nuclear licensing regulations". Since their announcement of this proposal at the 1996 Devonport Liaison Committee Meeting, no further mention of the RAFT has been made. During that meeting it was disclosed that the weapons loading jetty would absorb Saltash and more residential areas of Plymouth into the Navy's nuclear accident emergency zone. The Navy, hurriedly withdrawing from a planning meeting of Plymouth City and Saltash councillors in January 1997, have said little more about the jetty and weapons are still being loaded at the Dockyard despite the apparent risks. Now, DIG have learned that plans for the jetty are currently being drafted ready for a planning application being submitted in 1998. In a discussion with the Nuclear Inspectorate DIG have been told that they are very concerned about the loading and handling of weapons and high explosives at the dockyard within close proximity to residential areas and buildings not designed to withstand blast pressures.
According to DML's own publicity [1994 Planning Application] they are at least two years behind their construction schedule to convert 9 Dock to take Trident (Vanguard Class) submarine refits and to build the attendant support facilities including the new massive reactor spent fuel store. It is difficult to see how they will meet the deadline for the first Trident refit at the turn of the century without cutting corners. DIG are concerned that safety may be compromised in an effort to avoid construction penalties if the facilities cannot be built on time. According to the Environment Agency, blame for the delays rest with the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate who have still not given safety approval for the new docks. The Environment Agency has told DIG they are also aware that the massive construction schedule is getting very tight and agree that safety aspects need watching very closely. Despite the delay, DML were able to claim at the December '97 Devonport Liaison Committee that the plans were continuing at "full speed". However they omitted to mention that the new seismic protected dock gates at 10 Dock developed serious construction defects earlier in the year and had to be rebuilt at the expense of DML and the construction company. A sign of more to come?
It was revealed in November 1997 that 130 crew members and several dockyard workers on board HMS Turbulent underwent radiation checks after radioactive coolant escaped from it's reactor during post-refit trials in the North Atlantic. According to DML, the problem has still not been identified and as of Dec. '97 investigations are continuing. At the moment, Turbulent is still moored at Devonport. Independent nuclear engineering consultants have told the press that the incident may have been serious, but doubt that the MoD will release details. Although the Navy deny anyone was irradiated, DIG have had reports of contamination which has been hushed-up.
The Naval Base Commander at Plymouth has assured DIG that it is unlikely that any more decommissioned nuclear submarines will come to Plymouth - for the time being at least. According to the Commodore, the next may not be for several years when HMS Sovereign, currently the oldest serving nuclear submarine, is due for it's next refit. DIG are more sceptical as HMS Swiftsure of the same submarine class has already been decommissioned at Rosyth. According to the Commodore, the plan is probably to leave the decommissioned submarines where they are at Devonport and Rosyth until a disposal route can be identified. With the reactor sections alone weighing in at 850 tonnes of radioactive waste each, Plymouth already has 3,400 tonnes while Rosyth's total is almost a staggering 6,000 tonnes of waste. The Commodore gave little hope that NIREX would come up with a disposal solution but thought it more likely that the fore and aft sections would eventually be removed and the reactor sections stored on site. Four scrapped nuclear submarines are currently stored afloat at Devonport, Warspite, Courageous, Conqueror and Valiant. As of Dec. '97 Valiant's reactor fuel is still on board.
For the first time in 24 years, the normally closed annual Devonport Liaison Committee meeting in December '97 was opened to the public (although we were only allowed to observe, not speak). Two years ago, the Chair of the Plymouth City Council's Environmental Services Committee, the late Councillor Tony Martin, criticised the secretive meetings and called for more openness. Since then efforts have been made, particularly by Plymouth's Emergency Officer, Peter Smith, to fulfil Councillor Martin's wish and the Council's promise of more open local government. At the December '96 meeting only members of the press were invited, who were not meant to take notes, but discovered the Navy's intention to construct a new weapons loading jetty away from the Dockyard but close to the town of Saltash. The Committee, chaired by a Plymouth's senior Navy Officer is made up of Royal Navy officials, representatives from the local authorities, the emergency services, the health authority and regulatory bodies such as the Environment Agency, the Nuclear Inspectorate and National Radiological Protection Board. Current work and future proposals are meant to be discussed at the meeting though little opportunity is given to looking in detail at the Navy's plans, with most of the items already agreed at previous sub-committees which are still closed to the public. Despite a number of questions and statements raised by Plymouth City Councillors and Council Officers at the meeting, the Navy managed to avoid any repeat embarrassments as over the proposed weapons jetty and side-stepped criticisms of their nuclear accident plans. If only for the opportunity to see what was not on the agenda, the meeting was useful and allowed for informal discussion once the main business had been hurriedly concluded.
END