[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 48 (Thursday, March 25, 1999)] [Senate] [Pages S3540-S3542] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] SUBMISS: PART IIIMr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I wish to have printed in the Record the final portion of Mark A. Bradley's award winning article on the disappearance of the U.S.S. Scorpion. I have had the previous two parts of this article printed in the last two Records. I would like to applaud Mr. Bradley once more for his outstanding achievements, and thank him for serving as a loyal and valued member of my staff. The material follows: Submiss: The Mysterious Death of the U.S.S. ``SCORPION'' (SSN 589), Part III (By Mark A. Bradley) Such dire predictions prompted Admiral David McDonald, then Chief of Naval Operations, to follow Admiral Schade's request and approve the development and testing of the experimental ``Planned or Reduced Availability'' overhaul concept in the submarine fleet. In a June 17, 1966, message to the commanders of both the Navy's Atlantic and Pacific fleets, he wrote that in response to ``concerns about [the] percent [of] SSN off-line time due to length of shipyard overhauls, [I have] requested NAVSHIPS develop [a] program to test `Planned Availability' concept with U.S.S. Scorpion (SSN 589) and U.S.S. Tinosa (SSN 606). On July 20, 1966, he officially approved the Scorpion's participation in this program which aimed at providing the service's submarines with shorter and cheaper but more frequent overhauls between missions. An undated and unsigned confidential memorandum entitled ``Submarine Safety Program Status Report'' summarizes what lay behind the creation of this new concept: ``The deferral of SUBSAFE certification work during certain submarine overhauls was necessitated by the need to reduce submarine off-line time by minimizing the time spent in overhaul and to achieve a more timely delivery of submarines under construction by making more of the industrial capacity available to new construction.'' Admiral Moorer, who succeeded Admiral McDonald as CNO, expanded upon what he hoped this new plan would accomplish in a September 6, 1967, letter to Congressman William Bates. In that letter, he stated that ``it is the policy of the Navy to provide submarines that have been delivered without certification with safety certification modifications during regular overhauls. However, urgent operational commitments sometimes dictate that some items of the full safety certification package be deferred until a subsequent overhaul in order to reduce the time spent in overhaul, thus shortening off-line time and increasing operational availability. In these cases, a minimum package of submarine safety work items is authorized which provides enhanced safety but results in certification for unrestricted operations to a depth shallower than the designed test depth.'' According to an April 5, 1968 confidential memorandum, the Navy did not expect the Scorpion to be fully certified under SUBSAFE until 1974, six years after she was lost. On February 1, 1967, the Scorpion entered the Norfolk yard and began her ``Reduced Availability'' overhaul. By the time she sailed out on October 6, she had received the cheapest submarine overhaul in United States Navy history. Originally scheduled for more extensive reconditioning, the Scorpion was further hurt by manpower and material shortages in the yard because of the overhaul of the U.S.S. Skate (SSN 578), Norfolk's first of a nuclear submarine. This retrofit had gobbled up both workmen and resources at an unprecedented rate. This meant that a submarine tender--a maintenance ship--and the Scorpion's own crew had to perform most of the work normally done by yard workers. She received little more than the emergency repairs required to get her back to sea and the refueling of her reactor. Out of the $3.2 million spent on her during these eight months, $2.3 million went into refueling and altering her nuclear reactor. A standard submarine overhaul of this era lasted almost two years and cost over $20 million. When the Scorpion left Norfolk on February 15, 1968, on her Mediterranean deployment she was a last minute replacement for the U.S.S. Sea Wolf (SSN 575), which had collided with another vessel in Boston Harbor. During her last deployment, the Scorpion had 109 work orders still unfilled--one was for a new trash disposal unit latch--and she still lacked a working emergency blow system and decentralized emergency sea water shutoff valves. She also suffered from chronic problems in her hydraulics. This system operated both her stern and sail planes, wing-like structures that controlled her movement. This problem came to the forefront in early and mid-November 1967 during the Scorpion test voyage to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands as she began violently to corkscrew in the water. Although she was put back in dry dock, this problem remained unsolved. On February 16, 1968, she lost over 1,500 gallons of oil from her conning tower as she sailed out of Hampton Roads toward the Mediterranean. By that time, she was called ``U.S.S. Scrapiron'' by many of her crew. On May 23, 1993, the Houston Chronicle published an article that highlighted these mechanical problems. The article quoted from letters mailed home from doomed crew members who complained about these deficiencies. In one of these, Machinist's Mate Second Class David Burton Stone wrote that the crew had repaired, replaced or jury- [[Page S3541]] rigged every piece of the Scorpion equipment. Commander Slattery also was worried about her mechanical reliability. On March 23, 1968, he drafted an emergency request for repairs that warned, among other things, that ``the hull was in a very poor state of preservation''--the Scorpion had been forced to undergo an emergency drydocking in New London immediately after her reduced overhaul because of this--and bluntly stated that ``[d]elay of the work an additional year could seriously jeopardize the Scorpion material readiness.'' He was particularly concerned about a series of leaking valves that caused the Scorpion to be restricted to an operating depth of just 300 feet, 200 less than SUBSAFE restrictions and 400 less than her pre-Thresher standards. This portrait is sharply at odds with the one the Navy painted after the Scorpion was lost. From the outset, the service claimed the submarine was in excellent mechanical condition. At his first press conference on May 27, 1968, Admiral Moorer told the gathered newsmen that the Scorpion had not reported any mechanical problems and that she was not headed home for any repairs. This was followed by other Navy statements that claimed the Scorpion suffered only from a minor hydraulic leak and scarred linoleum on her deck before her Mediterranean deployment. On May 29, however, then Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford pointedly asked the Navy's high command for information about the Scorpion's participation in SUBSAFE, her overhaul status in general and any known mechanical deficiencies. The Court of Inquiry did not ignore these questions and asked several of its witnesses what they knew about the Scorpion's mechanical condition and her maintenance history. Vice Admiral Schade told the Court that her overall condition was above average and that her problems were normal reoccurring maintenance items. He added that the Scorpion suffered from no known material problems that affected her ability to operate effectively. Schade's testimony was supported by Captain C.N. Mitchell, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics and Management and a member of the Vice Admiral's staff. Mitchell testified about the Scorpion's Reduced Availability overhaul and stated that she was in ``good material condition.'' Captain Jared E. Clarke, III, the commander of Submarine Squadron 6, also told the Court the Scorpion was sound and ``combat ready.'' In his testimony he said, ``I know of nothing about her material condition upon her departure for the Mediterranean that in any way represented an unsafe condition.'' When asked about the Scorpion's lack of an operable emergency blow system, Clarke replied that this was not a concern because her other blow systems were more than adequate to meet the depth restrictions she was operating under. Admiral Austin also summoned the two surviving crew members the Scorpion had offloaded for medical and family reasons on the night of May 16, 1968. When asked about any material problems, crewman Joseph W. Underwood told the Court that he knew of no deficiencies other than ``a couple of hydraulic problems.'' Similarly, crewman Bill G. Elrod testified the submarine was operating smoothly with high morale. When asked to speculate on what did happen, Elrod could not. After hearing all this testimony, the Court determined that the Scorpion's loss had nothing to do with her lack of a full SUBSAFE package and that both here ability to overcome flooding and her material condition were ``excellent.'' Although at least one of the dead crewmen's families sent their son's letters spelling out the Scorpion's poor state of repair to the Navy, there is no evidence the Court ever received or considered them. Whatever the truth, the Scorpion's loss triggered neither the klieg lights of the national media nor the congressional investigations that followed the Thresher's demise. Lost somewhere in the murky twilight among the North Koreans' seizure of the U.S.S. Pueblo and the Tet offensive that January and the assassinations of Martin Luther King that April and Robert Kennedy that June, the Scorpion's death failed to arouse much interest in a nation whose streets were on fire and whose very fiber was being ripped apart by an increasingly unpopular and bloody war in Vietnam. With phrases like ``body count'' and acronyms like ``MIA'' and ``KIA'' becoming part of the national vernacular, the loss of one nuclear submarine and her crew of 99 men hardly made a ripple. The Navy added to the country's amnesia by conducting its inquiries under a cloak of extraordinary secrecy. Even now, much about the Scorpion's fate remains highly classified and beyond the public's reach, and the crew's 64 windows and over 100 children know little more today about what happened to their husbands and fathers than they did 30 years ago. This gap between what is known and what is not has spawned many conspiracy theories. The most popular is that the Soviets finished the Scorpion in an underwater dogfight. This theory had some credibility after the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested master spy John Walker on May 20, 1985. Walker, a U.S. Navy warrant officer and the leader of a Soviet-sponsored spy right for almost 20 years, did enormous damage to America's security by giving his KGB masters many of the Navy's most closely guarded secrets. On May 20, 1968, he was working as a watch officer in the Navy's closely guarded submarine message center in Norfolk. Although there is evidence to believe that Walker gave the Soviets intelligence about the Atlantic Submarine Force, particularly about its coded communications, there is nothing to suggest that he played any direct in the Scorpion's demise. He appears to have played a much more important role when he passed on to his Russian handlers much of the top secret traffic that came through the message center immediately after the submarine was reported lost. This highly classified information included how the Navy conducted its search, what the U.S. intelligence community knew about the Soviet vessels operating off the Canary Islands, what part SOSUS had played in detecting the disaster and what the service's main theories were for the Scorpion's loss. While it is tempting to blame the Soviets and Walker for this disaster, the probable truth is far different but no less disturbing. Although the theory of a weapons accident on board the Scorpion has officially never been discounted, the physical evidence does not seem to support it. None of the thousands of photographs taken of the wreckage show any torpedo damage nor does the Scorpion's approximately 3,000 feet by 1,800 feet debris field contain any items from her torpedo room as would be expected if that area had suffered a major explosion. All the debris is from her operations center, the locus of her galley and above her huge battery. The more likely cause of the Scorpion's death lies in the Navy's failure to absorb the lessons learned from the Thresher. Hyman Rickover, the father of the Navy's nuclear program, warned after that disaster that another would occur if the service did not correct the inadequate design, poor fabrication methods and inadequate inspections that caused it. Through SUBSAFE, the Navy instituted a program to correct these and maintain and build a nuclear submarine fleet that was both safe and effective. Unfortunately, the strains of competing with the Soviets in the Cold War while fighting an actual one in Vietnam derailed this concept and forced the service to look for ways to decrease the off-line time of the submarines it already had while freeing its already choked yards to build more. The Reduced Availability concept arose from these pressures and allowed the Navy to defer what the Thresher taught could not be delayed. Through an accident of timing, the Scorpion was the first nuclear submarine chosen for this program. She was selected because her next regulatory scheduled overhaul was predicted to set a record in duration, and the Navy's high command believed that the work she received during her 1963-1964 reconditioning in Charleston provided enough of a safety margin to see her through until her next overhauls. She also was chosen because her 1967 overhaul came due during a time when the service was feeling enormous pressure to compete with the Soviets and reduce the amount of time its submarines and yards were tied up with safety retrofits. Rushed to the Mediterranean after the cheapest overhaul in U.S. nuclear submarine history and lacking full SUBSAFE certification, the Scorpion's mechanical condition and safety capabilities were far from what the Navy advertised. A trash disposal unit flood could have set into train a deadly chain of events that triggered a succession of material and systemic failures in an already weakened submarine that left her unable to recover. Although the Court doubted that a hydrogen gas explosion from the Scorpion's battery could have generated enough force to rupture her hull, it did not consider its exploding after being swamped with cold sea water from uncontrollable flooding and filling her with deadly chlorine gas. Even under the best of circumstances, the submarine force was a dangerous place to serve in the 1960s. Its sailors and officers often were engaged in extremely hazardous missions in warships that were like no others that had come before them. With far greater speeds, diving capabilities and complex operating systems, nuclear submarines required far greater care in their construction and maintenance than their diesel predecessors. This was the key lesson from the Thresher and if may well have taken the loss of the Scorpion finally to hammer home this point to the Navy's high command. After this tragedy, the Navy quietly dropped the Reduced Availability concept. In a May 21, 1995, article published by the Houston Chronicle, the Naval Sea Systems Command stated that it had no record of any such maintenance program. The reason for this may lie in a March 25, 1966, confidential memorandum from the Submarine Force: [The] ``success of this `major-minor' overhaul concept depends essentially on the results of our first case at hand: Scorpion.'' Although the cause of her death is still officially listed as unknown, the United States has never lost another nuclear submarine. a note on sources In the 30 years since the Scorpion's loss, not one book has been written on her. The only newspaper articles written about her are eight by Ed Offley for the Virginian-Pilot & Ledger-Star and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and four written by Stephen Johnson for the Houston Chronicle. The most important primary sources are the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry Record of Proceedings and the Supplementary Record of Proceedings. In addition, the Naval Historical Center has over 11 boxes of Scorpion material currently available to researchers and expects to have more as already declassified material is cataloged. These boxes include the sanitized [[Page S3542]] testimony of many of the witnesses who appeared before the two courts of inquiry. Although the Chief of Naval Operations currently is considering releasing more of the Navy's Scorpion material, much still remains beyond the reach of researchers and the Freedom of Information Act. On December 19, 1997, the Navy denied my attempt to get copies of the first Court of Inquiry's Annex. Those documents still retain their top secret rating and are withheld because ``of information that is classified in the interest of national defense and foreign policy.'' The most useful books for this article have been the following: On submarines, Modern Submarine Warfare by David Miller and John Jordan, New York: Military Press (1987); Jane's Pocket Book of Submarine Development, ed. By John Moore, New York: MacMillan (1976); The American Submarine by Norman Polmar, Annapolis: The Nautical & Aviation Publishing Co., (1981); and Nuclear Navy 1946-1962 by Richard Hewlett and Francis Duncan, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (1974). On intelligence matters, Jeffrey Richelson, The U.S. Intelligence Community, Cambridge: Ballenger Publishing Company (1989) and Pete Early, Family of Spies, New York: Bantam Books (1988). Stephen Johnson, a reporter for the Houston Chronicle, was the first to concentrate on the Scorpion's maintenance and overhaul history and was very generous with both his time and research. Vice Admiral Robert F. Fountain (Ret), a former executive officer on the Scorpion, very kindly consented to an interview as did Rear Admiral Hank McKinney (Ret), the former commander of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Submarine Force. In May 1998, the Chief of Naval Operations declassified a 1970 study undertaken by a specially appointed Structural Analysis Group that pointed to a battery casualty as the most likely cause for the Scorpion's loss. ____________________