ARE ALL 57 US NUCLEAR POWERED
ATTACK SUBMARINES AT RISK
OF MELTDOWNS?SUBMARINE HMS TIRELESS SUFFERS
PROBABLE REACTOR MELTDOWNIt seems that by strange happenstance some nuclear submarine disasters get lots of publicity, while others get none. The Russian submarine Kursk sank in the Berents Sea on August 12 and has received much press coverage ever since. A British hunter-killer submarine, HMS Tireless, suffered a probable nuclear reactor meltdown on May 19 and has lain incapacitated in Gibraltar on the southern coast of Spain ever since. Not a word has been reported on this latter alarming accident by the U.S. press.
The HMS Tireless was towed into Gibraltar after suffering a non-isolable leak in its primary coolant system. This class of nuclear accident is defined as a Loss-of-Coolant-Accident (LOCA) and is potentially disastrous because uncovering of the core can result in a meltdown, with an associated release of enormous quantities of radioactivity. By Nuclear Regulatory Commission mandate, U.S. commercial reactors employ Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) to protect against LOCAs. But because of space limitations aboard submarines, neither U.S. or foreign nuclear subs are equipped with this vital safety system, nor are the two nuclear submarine prototypes at the Kesselring Site Operation.
On later investigation, a crack, also described as a split, was found at a critical junction of the pipes in the pressurized water reactor's cooling system, where a welding fault was discovered. In discussing the crack location, the British navy referred to "the trouser-leg problem", relating to the narrow access ducts for the cracked pipes (note the use of plural)in the nuclear coolant system. It was also stated that the initial leak was a symptom of what has turned out to be a much more devastating problem, a potentially catastrophic design fault. One source reported that the cracks (note the use of plural) could not be in a worse position. Taken literally, this may indicate that the cracks are actually below the elevation of the core. Nothing could be worse than cracks in the piping beneath the core that cannot be isolated on a plant that has no ECCS.
Although the above meager information has been released about the crack situation, information about the condition of the nuclear core is much more closely held. One source reported that the reactor had been about to seize up because of the damage. The terminology used, "seize up", may refer to the fact that core damage effecting the control rod channels prevented all control rods from being inserted to shutdown the reactor. It was also reported that the reactor was "at the very point of failure" - in other words a meltdown. Subsequently, MoD has stated that it could not disclose what is wrong with the Tireless reactor "without consulting the Americans first" - the reactor is based on a American design.
Apparently it was not just that the reactor was about to seize up, or that the reactor was at the point of failure, the reactor was, in fact, seriously damaged. If the Tireless were submerged when the leak occurred, then the reactor could not be scrammed until the boat surfaced. This would take some time. Then, there are casualty procedures for locating a primary coolant leak. These also take some time. It is quite possible that the time element to surface and to perform the casualty procedure was of such duration that a portion of the reactor core uncovered while the reactor was still at power. This could cause fuel elements to melt and control rod channels to physically distort such that when the reactor was finally scrammed the rods did not all insert. This may leave the reactor in the precarious position of being shutdown while hot but incapable of being maintained at shutdown if cooled down. As an alternate scenario, the commander of the Tireless may have used incredibly bad judgment in an ill fated attempt to reach port on nuclear power, despite the leak. Either way, the reactor damage occurred. And since submarines have no ECCS, and the leak is continuing, it may be that the Tireless must be kept at the dock so as to provide sufficient volumes of shore water to makeup for loss from the ongoing leak. Hence,good reason that the crippled Tireless has remained at Gibraltar for 5 months as Britain has ruled out towing the sub back to Britain.
The HMS Tireless is now the center of a wider safety dispute involving the UK and Spain at Prime Ministerial level. SPAIN sent a rare protest note to the Foreign Office berating the fact that Tireless has been stuck in Gibraltar for the past five months. Spain accuses Britain of underestimating the extent of the damage. Initially, the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) assured Gibraltarians that it was only a "minor defect". Since then,Britain recalled entire fleet (12) of strike submarines for safety checks, at least three or which may never return to active duty because of their age and the problems of repairing pipe work in awkward locations near the boats' reactors. The British navy is now deprived of its entire strike force for at least five months. U.S. submarines may be drafted to protect Britain's Trident missile force while the Royal Navy's hunter-killer fleet is out of action. British Naval engineers are said to be astonished to discover the problem on the Tireless turned out to be so serious. The British navy's most senior adviser on nuclear safety has flown to Spain. Gibraltarians face the prospect of a immobile Tireless sitting off the Rock for a year.
But, there are even more ominous overtones. The British MoD itself says
that the reactor is based on American design. It is quite probable that the primary coolant system, with its potentially catastrophic design fault, was also based on American design. If so, this means that all U.S. Seawolf attack submarines are potential victims of the same LOCA and core damage as the HMS Tireless. Is the U.S. Navy doing safety checks on its 57 nuclear-powered attack submarines? If they are, they would never admit it to the media or the U.S. public. Cover-up has always been the name of the game for the U.S. Navy. In any case, the HMS Tireless, provides an emphatic statement as to why the two aged nuclear submarine prototypes at the Kesselring Site, near Saratoga Springs, NY, should never have been operated in a populated region without the two most vital safety systems known, namely an Emergency Core Cooling System and a Reactor Containment System. Even if the designs are not exactly the same as the HMS Tireless, this disaster well illustrates why these two dangerous prototypes should be immediately and permanently shutdown.John P. Shannon
Nuclear Physicist/Nuclear Engineer
Former Manager of Health and Safety at the Nuclear Navy's Knolls Atomic Power Laboratoryps: I have now been informed that several years ago the U.S. licensed Britain to use the S5W nuclear plant technology. This means that the HMS Tireless employs an S5W propulsion system. As far is known, S5W reactor plants are no longer used in Navy fleet operations. However, the S7G prototype at the Kesselring Site is using an S5G reactor. In addition, it has been learned that the two training submarines moored in the Charleston SC harbor both use the S5W plant. The Charleston plants are operating on their THIRD cores in a system that was initially designed for a lifetime of two cores due to unpredictable damage to the pressure vessel walls from neutron embrittlement. Probably not coincidentally, the operational limits of power and primary system pressure have been reduced in at least the two Charleston reactors. In lieu of the HMS Tireless disaster in May, I believe the U.S. Navy should have immediately and permanently shutdown these three Naval Reactor training plants. To do otherwise is irresponsible and indefensible. The U.S. Congress should initiate an immediate investigation of this reckless behavior by the U.S. Navy and by Naval Reactors.
Mothers' Alert Home | More Information | Actions | News