580 



marines. All 113 will eventually be decommissioned as they reach the end of their 

 useful service lives, nominally considered to be in the range of 25-30 years. 

 Question 2. (a) What are the options that are being considered for disposal? 



(b) If scuttling in the ocean is a possible option, what portions of the submarine 

 would be scuttled? 



(c) If this option is pursued, will the Navy apply to the Environmental Protection 

 Agency for ocean dumping permits? 



Answer 2. The Navy is currently conducting preliminary studies of two alterna- 

 tives for the ultimate disposal of defueled decommissioned nuclear-powered subma- 

 rines, one alternative is to bury the submarine's reactor compartment housing the 

 reactor plant, after defueling, at an existing Federal land disposal site. The second 

 alternative under preliminary study for ultimate disposal is to place the entire 

 submarine after defueling, at a site in a deep part of the ocean where there is 

 virtually no likelihood of its being disturbed by human activities, seismic action, or 

 ocean movement. No decision has been made on one alternative for disposal over 

 the other since the Navy is still collecting data. Any decision to proceed would not 

 be taken until completion of an Environmental Impact Statement, taking into 

 account the views of the public and government and non-government organizations. 

 If the Navy were to choose land disposal as a preferred alternative, arrangements 

 with the Department of Energy would have to be made for use of a DOF land 

 disposal site. If the Navy were to choose sea disposal as a preferred alternative, the 

 Navy would have to apply to the Environmental Protection Agency for a permit 

 under the Marine, Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. 



A fact sheet on these Navy preliminary studies is provided as enclosure (1). 



Question S. (a) What efforts has the Navy made to locate the nuclear reactor from 

 the submarine, SEAWOLF? 



Answer 3(a). The first reactor in the USS SEAWOLF was a liquid metal interme- 

 diate range power reactor and was not a breeder reactor. Although the original 

 reactor plant operated satisfactorily for approximately two years, it was replaced 

 with a pressurized water reactor because the liquid metal type of reactor plant was 

 determined to be unsuited for continued submarine application. The weight savings 

 that had been sought in using the more compact liquid metal design was lost due to 

 the need for additional shielding. With a water-cooled reactor the reactor compart- 

 ment can be entered to make repairs immediately after the reactor is shut down. 

 With a liquid metal plant there is a considerable delay time which was considered 

 undesirable for a warship which might suffer battle damage requiring immediate 

 repair. There was also a fire hazard with liquid sodium which can react with water 

 creating an additional hazard in a submarine application. 



The reactor was designed by the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. General Elec- 

 tric was the primary manufacturer. 



The USS SEAWOLF reactor plant was disposed of at sea. On April 18, 1959 the 

 radioactive reactor vessel and reactor plant components from the sodium-cooled 

 nuclear reactor plant in the submarine SEAWOLF were placed on a barge, escorted 

 by the U.S. Coast Guard to a disposal site in the Atlantic Ocean 120 miles off the 

 East Coast of the U.S. and sunk in 9,000 feet of water at latitude 38°30'N and 

 longitude 72°06'W. The expended nuclear fuel was not disposed of at sea but was 

 shipped to special Government facilities for processing in the same manner as for 

 other expended nuclear fuel. The disposal was conducted at a site approved for sea 

 disposal of radioactive waste by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. This disposal 

 site was used by other organizations for a number of years for radioactive waste as 

 noted in a report issued by the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (Ocean 

 Dumping, A National Policy, October 1970). 



The radioactivity was sealed within the heavy steel reactor vessel for disposal. 

 The radioactivity was restricted from release not only because it was located inside 

 the reactor vessel but because it was further contained as an integral part of the 

 corrosion resistant stainless steel internal reactor vessel structure. A release into 

 the surrounding area would be expected to occur only due to corrosion of both the 

 reactor vessel followed by slower corrosion of the stainless steel. Furthermore, the 

 products of corrosion of the steel are primarily solid rust-like materials which are 

 extremely insoluble in sea water and therefore tend to remain attached to the metal 

 surfaces or remain locally on the bottom sediments. The total amount of radioactiv- 

 ity was approximately 33,000 curies, which in the twenty-one years since disposal, 

 has decayed to less than one tenth this quantity, essentially all cobalt 60. 



In view of the above, the radioactivity should remain within the SEAWOLF 

 reactor vessel while it decays away and no significant effect on the marine environ- 

 ment is expected. However, the Navy has been interested in locating the SEAWOLF 

 disposal barge and conducting radiological monitoring to provide direct verification 



