An urgent investigation was ordered by the Royal Navy after maintenance workers used glue to fix damage in a nuclear reactor on a Trident submarine. The shoddy repair work was discovered by the sub’s engineers as they prepared to fire up the reactor to full power for the first time. The HMS Vanguard is part of a four-strong class of nuclear-powered submarines whose role is to carry Trident ballistic missiles.
It was commissioned in August 1993 and with a length of 150 metres is almost as long as St Paul’s Cathedral.
Vital maintenance work on the sub has been going on since 2015.
However, the work is almost four years late and has overshot its budget by £300million.
During a dry dock refurbishment and refuel at HMNB Devonport in Plymouth, workers from the defence contractor Babcock discovered some damaged bolts on vital coolant pipes.
They noticed that some of the bolt heads had been sheared off through clumsy over-tightening.
The bolts hold insulation in place on the pipes which prevent a Chornobyl-style meltdown.
Instead of properly replacing the damaged bolts, workmen are accused of simply glueing the heads back on.
They reported a procedural glitch, but made no mention of either the bolts or the glue.
A Royal Navy source told The Sun that they are furious that Babcock had failed to inform them about the bolts.
They said: “It’s a disgrace. You can’t cut corners with nuclear.
“Standards are standards. Nuclear standards are never compromised.”
Investigators are now examining maintenance work records in an urgent attempt to discover who was responsible.
READ MORE: ‘Prepare for war’, says ex-military boss, urging defence spending hike
Royal Navy sources insisted that there had never been any danger of the rector exploding.
However, former sub captain Cdr Ryan Ramsay told The Sun: “This is a massive trust issue for Babcock and the Royal Navy to resolve.
“It makes you wonder what else has been done poorly.”
A spokesperson for Babcock said: “Any quality-related issue is a huge disappointment, but our own robust inspection processes discovered the issue.
“There was no safety or operational impact from the work.”
