nuke navy - HMS Tireless

[Norman Cohen <ncohen12@comcast.net>]

Hi all,

You asked about nuclear navy. Here's one I came across. Yes its British, but the

design is Yankee.



norm



Jacksha1@aol.com wrote:



> November 5, 2000

> John P. Shannon

> 262 Jones Road

> Saratoga Springs

> NY

> 12866

> 518-587-3245

>

> SUBMARINE HMS TIRELESS SUFFERS PROBABLE REACTOR MELTDOWN

>

> It 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 Laboratory

>

> ps: 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.

>

>



--

Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave.,

Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8583 or 609-601-8537;  ncohen12@comcast.net  UNPLUG

SALEM WEBSITE:  http://www.unplugsalem.org/  COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE

WEBSITE:  http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org   The Coalition for Peace

and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.

"First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you; Then you

win. (Gandhi) "Why walk when you can fly?"  (Mary Chapin Carpenter)







************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/