[ RadSafe ] A British nuclear submarine leaked hundreds of litresof radioactive waste into a river, it has emerged.

[Brian Rees]

Wow, this happened to me too, sort of... and I learned from it too!

I was stationed aboard a nuclear submarine in San Diego, CA in the 
80's.  We were transferring potentially contaminated water to a tank 
on the pier.    It was late afternoon.  We'd established a controlled 
area around the tank (probably about 6-8' around it) with 
rad-rope.  The tank level gage wasn't very reliable, and we 
overflowed the  tank.  I was on the Submarine tender farther down the 
pier getting some parts when I heard "SPILL ON THE PIER, SPILL ON THE 
PIER, ALL HANDS STAY CLEAR".  I ran down to the Rad-Con department, 
where they were getting ready to go down to the pier and 
assist.  They were getting boxes of absorbent towels (Kim-wipes) 
ready, I took a stack of boxes, probably 3' high and took off down 
the pier, peering around the boxes from time to time to get my 
bearings.  I could see people on the pier working around the tank, 
and headed for them.  I ran up to the rad rope, and offered my 
kim-wipes to the folks inside the rope, just like we always did in 
drills.   One of the guys said "Rees, look down", I did and 
discovered that the spill was 5' or so outside the rad rope, and I 
was standing in (potentially contaminated) water... So I set the 
boxes down, and started to actually help by moving the rad rope to 
OUTSIDE the puddle.  We put bundles of kimwipes down to absorb the 
water, some bundles broke open, and we had to chase blowing kimwipes 
down the pier, as a news helicopter hovered nearby.  My roomates told 
me later that it was pretty comical, especially when they realized I 
was involved.  No measurable contamination was found, and water 
samples showed no contamination.

What we learned:  1) Keep in mind what boundary ropes are established 
for... 2) The topside watch threw a locator dye pack into the water 
right after the spill, so it was easy to ensure we obtained a 
representative water sample.

If we'd been transferring high level materials we would have done 
things differently from the beginning, just as I'm sure these folks 
would have.  You take precautions appropriate for the hazard level 
you are working at (a concept that seems to be getting lost).

Happy Veteran's Day!

Brian Rees




At 07:09 AM 11/11/2008, Dawson, Fred Mr wrote:

>Radioactive water leaks from nuclear submarine HMS Trafalgar
>
>
>Telegraph reports
>
>
>A British nuclear submarine leaked hundreds of litres of radioactive
>waste into a river, it has emerged.
>
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/3439005/Radioactive-water-l
>eaks-from-nuclear-submarine-HMS-Trafalgar.html
>
>Environment watchdogs are investigating the leak at Devonport, in
>Plymouth, from HMS Trafalgar in which 280 litres of contaminated water
>were spilled.
>
>The Environment Agency threatened to prosecute the Ministry of Defence
>or Devonport Management Limited after a series of spills in 2005.
>
>The water, which amounts to more than quarter of a ton, was being
>removed from the submarine's cooling system and pumped into an effluent
>tank on shore.
>
>It contained low levels of the radioactive element tritium which were
>picked up as the water was used to cool the reactor on board the
>submarine.
>
>The water drained into the River Tamar at Devonport because a hose
>leaked as the contaminated water was being transferred.
>
>The water was due to be removed and either decontaminated or disposed of
>as low level nuclear waste.
>
>The spill is the largest in 23 years but tests in the river have showed
>no signs of increased radiation and the Environment Agency says there is
>no risk to the public.
>
>A nuclear expert criticised the Ministry of Defence for withholding
>details of the spill for four days after the accident early on Friday
>morning.
>
>Nuclear consultant John Large said the leak represented a potential risk
>to workers at the dockyard and was a serious breach of safety
>procedures.
>
>He said: "This is very serious because it means there has been a
>breakdown in nuclear safety protocols.
>
>"The risk to the public is virtually zero but there was a risk to the
>workers who may have been exposed to this without being aware of it.
>
>"They could have transferred it to other areas of the yard where nuclear
>safety controls are not in place on their shoes or clothing.
>
>"Systems are in place to stop this sort of leak happening so the very
>fact that it did means that something has gone seriously wrong.
>
>"There is an underlying problem of accountability and the Ministry of
>Defence have only described this incident a few days after it occurred."
>
>
>Ian Avent from the Plymouth-based Campaign Against Nuclear Storage and
>Radiation said: "It is the worst accident I have heard of. It beggars
>beliefs it could have happened at all.
>
>"We are lucky the consequences of all the incidents we have had in the
>dockyard have not been far, far worse. How long are we going to rely on
>the management being lucky?
>
>"We are relying on their handling of these dangerous processes not just
>for our health and safety but for our lives.
>
>"This does not inspire any confidence in them at all."
>
>A spokesman for the Royal Navy said no-one had been hurt in the incident
>and the vessel's nuclear power plant was unaffected.
>
>He said: "Shortly after midnight on the night of November 6/7, during a
>standard operation to transfer primary coolant from HMS Trafalgar to an
>effluent tank on the jetty, a hose ruptured, resulting in a leak of the
>coolant.
>
>"A maximum of 280 litres of coolant were discharged from the hose onto
>the submarine casing, jetty and into the Hamoaze area of the river
>Tamar.
>
>"As soon as the leak was discovered, the transfer was stopped, the area
>was quarantined, monitoring and sampling carried out and a clean-up
>operation completed.
>
>"Initial sampling has not detected any radioactive contamination in the
>local environment.
>
>"The environmental risk is assessed to be negligible and analysis of
>river water has not shown any detectable contamination.
>
>"Investigations into the cause of the rupture are ongoing and will lead
>to remedial action as necessary to prevent this incident from
>re-occurring.
>
>"This incident has not affected the submarine's programme."
>
>A spokesman for the Environment Agency said: "Our role is to regulate
>the site to ensure the protection of people and the environment.
>
>"We are certain there is no significant environmental impact, but we
>have taken our own samples for reassurance purposes and these are in
>addition to the monitoring carried out by the Ministry of Defence.
>
>"We will investigate the circumstances of this unauthorised discharge
>and make sure that all necessary measures are taken to stop it happening
>again."
>
>Fred Dawson  CRadP MSRP
>
>Fwp_dawson at hotmail.com
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
>understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
>http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other 
>settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/