Nuclear Reactors at Sea

The Navy personnel from Pearl Harbor was correct in his reply stating that decommissioned submarines are dismantled and re-used to the maximum degree. Being a retired civilian submarine Design Engineer from the Atlantic coast, I can not vouch for the veracity of the quoted Bemerton WA location; however, I CAN assure you that there are numerous “Navy graveyards” for all kinds of ships; that very few nuclear vessels have actually been decommissioned; and of those that have been and an alternative use for the reactor has not been found (i.e. training, research), any possible radioactive materials are disposed of at various nuclear disposal sites, some of which are on federal property, following very strict hazardous material procedures that apply to ALL nuclear waste, including nuclear power plant waste and by-products from manufacture of weapons and other things that exist in our daily lives that have nothing to do with the miltary.

Regarding radioactivity from the remains of USS Thresher: The following statement is quoted from http://www.asrarsassn.org/thresher.htm

“Owing to the pressurized-water nuclear reactor in the engine room, deep ocean radiological monitoring operations were conducted in August 1983 and August 1986. The site had been previously monitored in 1965 and 1977 and none of the samples obtained showed any evidence of release of radioactivity from the reactor fuel elements. Fission products were not detected above concentrations typical of worldwide background levels in sediment, water, or marine life samples.”

I swear I am not doing this to be the “Ha ha! You spelled that wrong!” type, but there is a typo in the column’s answer:

Might want to fix that before it goes back into the archives again.

Always a fan,
Beadalin

CuriousCanuck said:

You seem to be under the impression this means the lakes are frozen solid. I would expect a Canadian to know this better than a Texan, but frozen lakes in fact remain liquid under the surface. Where do you think the fish go? And haven’t you heard of ice fishing, where you cut a hole in the ice and then fish through the hole?

They low-balled that figure, too.

In Navy Nuke school, we were told that it was actually closer to a billion curies, mostly released within the vicinity of the Baltic Sea.

Mandirt
MM1/SS/DV

I knew a Nuke would chime in at some point. What took you so long?

Hmmph.

I suppose if I had LEFT IN my crack about Sonar Girls, I wouldn’t have come in under your rada – errr, sonar.

But, I thought it would be disrespectful, so here I am doing my best impression of a plate of chopped liver.

I couldn’t let the Coners have all of the fun :wink:

There are several current or former nukes on this board–myself, for one. What’s a sonar tech like you doing worrying about the big teakettle back aft, anyway? :wink:

Anyway, the only real danger of a meltdown occuring in any U.S. naval reactor is complete loss of coolant following extended operation powering the ship. The main problem is decay heat from said extended operation. Fail-safe safety systems will automatically shut down the reactor, which will also happen if all electrical power is lost. As the reactor’s short-lived decay products decay away, the decay heat becomes less of a problem. Should a sub go down, flooding all compartments, seawater will suffice to provide sufficient cooling for this decay heat.

BTW, all U.S. subs have only one reactor.

Also, Q.E.D., read your definition. The term “scuttle” in the nautical sense is always taken to mean the action of intentionally sinking your ship at sea.

Just like a Nuke to repeat everything Ive already said. Thanks for the back up though.

I was going to question this because I was thinking about USS Narwahl, but, I decided to look it up first to refresh my memory. Yes, SSN 671 has only one reactor also (but - it has 2 tunnels… that was the part I remembered). Nuclear Aircraft Carriers have 2 reactors.

Here is the sickening part… :rolleyes:
I found the most accurate online information on a FOREIGN website (Denmark). On a quick search, I couldn’t find any American websites for active submarines…except for where to buy ballcaps. I would think that we (US Navy) would prefer to control the accuracy of information on the “information highway”, as opposed to leaving it up to other countries to post whatever they please. I am not talking about any confidential technical details… I am referring to things like the builder, keel laid, commissioned date, type, class, fleet, general size, basic crew count, etc. I recall seeing a reference book containing that kind of stuff available to the public.

Of course, then there would be no use for forums like this one so that everyone can air their own speculations on the truth. :smiley:

The book(s) you refer to is Jane’s Fighting Ships and their variants. Information tends to be well-researched, detailed, and easy to find. Military junkies love to quote Jane’s. It’s like their Bible or something. Unfortunately, their web site is not so good for the information you were looking for. I suggest an antiquated information source like a library. Much like spelling, library usage is a dying art form.

Regarding the validity of things said at Navy’s Nuclear Power School in Disney’s Orlando, FL, I can attest that not all that is said is true. As a recent MS graduate in Nuclear Engineering just prior to attending Nuke School, I found more casual (wrong) statements than I cared to correct (usually by the seagoing officers trying to impress the students with their diverse knowledge of the arcane). And, as a (ex-)Navy person, you should know that it thrives on tribal knowledge, particularly with respect to items that are a) difficult to verify and b) of no practical consequence.

Since no one has mentioned them yet, I will–what about those liquid metal reactors that the Soviets tried to use (http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/navy/northern_fleet_new/spent_fuel/28249.html)? For the record, we tried it, too (but not in subs). Those are more than happy to coalesce into a critical mass even in seawater, and the Soviets weren’t so good about small things like safety and safeguards. Even were the core to bust open, would anyone notice? Not likely, unless the vessel was parked on the surface or near it. Shrink to critical, puff out to non-critical, keep heating water, sizzle, sizzle.

All that said and done, I was happy to see that someone mentioned the real hazard to all that radioactive material floating over our heads–the plutonium. The radioactivity pales in comparison to the toxicity, but speculation about radioactivity seems to be a more sexy discussion point. Oh, well.

Before you poo-poo the ex-Soviets for dumping all that radioactive waste into the oceans, you may want to recall where you threw your last fire alarms. Probably the garbage, you radioactive dumper, you.


Knowledge is power, but I skipped my Wheaties this morning.–me

I cant see how you can compare a 1 millionth curie smoke detector with the millions of curies the Soviets have dumped into the oceans. Guess you really did skip those wheaties this morning.

Actually they have 4 reactors…one per shaft.

Alright I quit…they do have two!

I was going to look that up too, but I figured that after my futile search for sub info, that Aircraft Carrier websites would be full of Trekkie stories following the USS Enterprise and campaign photos of George Bush’s recent “landing”.

Anyway, I WAS reasonably sure that there were only two (2) Reactor Rooms (fwd and aft). Although I should remember how many shafts there are, I don’t; however, I doubt that there are 4 (at least not of the same type). Basically, Carriers have 2 of all major components and Engineering Spaces (except for ACs, that number varies depending on the size of the ship).

That’s the book! :smack:
Thanks! I could not remember the name of it. When I worked at CINCLANT, I used it all the time. Their info was very accurate and complete.

I bet if I wore a TLD around my house and yard for a day, or worse-the local junkyard, I would get more radioactive exposure than in a reactor room of a US Navy ship. Note: I said US not Soviet. :eek: Whoever said that they don’t have (or utilize) all the safety features that we do is correct. I would not feel safe on one of their vessels. I do believe that more Soviet subs have sunk than American ones.

Hey skyjerm, being an engineer myself, I quickly learned to verify ANYthing quoted as “common knowledge” by a sea-going officer before repeating it as fact.

I’m glad this bothered other folks as much as it bothered me. 1983 or not, this was the absolute worst Cecil column I’ve ever read.

In a nutshell, US submarines are disposed of thusly: They are taken under tow to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton WA where they are decommissioned and go on a waiting list to be put into drydock. Once they are in drydock the “recycling” program begins and the subs are gutted and dismantled. The reactor compartments are sealed and completely contained and then shipped by barge to Hanford WA where they are buried. The rest of the boat is sold, either as scrap or as memorabilia.

There is a web page created by a former ET that has plenty of detail and photos of the entire recycling process at http://www.donshelton.net/djs-srp1.htm. The site is a few years old, but very relevant to the topic. Warning to the other ex-submariners here - some of these photos can be depressing. One of them is of the first boat I deployed to. (By the way - I was a spook, so I’m just a rider. If I were still serving, I’d have the SG qualification, but it didn’t exist while I was in so for a while anyway I was CTI2 (SS)).

As for Soviet accidents - we still don’t know the extent or consequences of all of them. There have been a heck of a lot of Soviet subs that have gone down or had major fires, radiation leaks etc. The Soviet military philosophy was that lack of quality materiel could be compensated for by an abundance of poor-quality materiel. Hence, even after the USSR is no more, Russia’s navy is still plagued with incidents like the Kursk sinking in 1998 due to poor-quality Soviet era military hardware.

I’d sure like to see Cecil come up with a cite that shows that the US has EVER considered scuttling nuclear ships at sea. I cannot imagine that such an idea would be given any kind of merit if for no other reason than public opinion. On the other hand (and I think this is what Cecil had in mind) in 1981 the Soviets DID scuttle a submarine in the Kara Sea. The boat had a reactor accident in 1968 and it was determined that repairing the vessel was futile, therefore it was scuttled. I just found a good cite with info on Soviet sub accidents here: http://www.spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/nfl8.htm

Oh, and for the non-nautical types: when one uses the term “scuttle” with regard to a ship it quite specifically means to intentionally sink it. The use of the nautical term “to scuttle” with the meaning “to abandon” is slang - e.g. My company’s big project was scuttled. To scuttle something literally means to put a hole (which is what the noun scuttle means in nautical parlance) in it with the intent of sinking it.

Does anybody actually read the posts in here before they write a reply? Either people just want to write a reply to try and show off some kind of knowledge or they arent reading previous posts. Pretty much everything GWVet wrote has already been said…a couple times. If you dont have some NEW information on the topic then why tell us?