Addition for POLARIS launch system overhaul, $414,000.-The first line item is for construction of a wing on the east end of the field and machine shops building as an addition for POLARIS launch system overhaul at the estimated cost of $414,000. This is needed for the overhaul and repair of POLARIS submarine missile launching tubes, air systems, launch valves, and other large launching hardware items. There are no facilities at the yard which can be converted to this purpose. Addition for POLARIS navigation and fire control system overhaul, $1,009,000.The second line item is for extending the electric lab and electric-electronic shops building by an addition for POLARIS navigation and fire control system overhaul at the estimated cost of $1,009,000. The first overhaul of a POLARIS submarine at this yard is scheduled for approximately October 1962. A principal function during this overhaul will be to repair, test, and check out various components of the ship's fire control and navigation subsystems. Special equipment, housed in controlled atmospheric environment, is required for this purpose. For efficiency and economy, the line item to meet this need will be an addition to the electric lab and electric-electronic shops building in which allied electronic shop operations are conducted. Addition for technical personnel, $126,000.-The next line item is for construction of a wing at the west end of the field and machine shops building. This is an addition for technical personnel at the cost of $126,000. The advent of the POLARIS submarine and the assignment to this yard of construction and overhaul responsibilities, have generated a requirement for working space for approximately 150 permanently assigned engineering and technical specialists and for crews of the ships in port for overhaul. No existing facilities are available to satisfy this need. The plan to build a wing for this purpose on an existing building will result in economies in construction of the structure and utilities, without sacrificing usability of the present facilities. Electric power for drydock, $170,000.- The fourth line item in this project is electric power for drydock at the estimated cost of $170,000. In the early fall of 1962 when the full schedule of overhauling POLARIS submarines is to start, drydock No. 2 will be used for the purpose. When a ship is in drydock its own reactor and power will be inoperative, thus making it necessary to have shore power available. Only a nominal amount of alternating current electrical power is now available, whereas approximately 3,750 additional kilowatts are required. The shortage of a.c. power at the drydock will be met by accomplishing this line item through construction of a substation and the necessary elec trical distribution lines. Inasmuch as this item is needed for the overhaul of nuclear submarines, as well as POLARIS submarines, it is not exclusively a POLARIS support item and has not been included in the POLARIS package. Additions to utilities systems, $55,000.- The final line item is for additions to the utilities systems at the estimated cost of $55,000. In order that the yard may carry out its mission with regard to POLARIS submarines, it will be necessary to use berths 13B and 13C in overhauling such ships and in performing tests of systems on new construction when completed. As the ship's engineering plant will be shut down during the work, various utilities must be available at the berths. Among the utilities which will be needed for test and supply purposes, but which are not available, are high pressure steam and condensate lines and a pure water distribution line. These two utilities will be furnished by this proposed line item NAVAL STATION, CHARLESTON, S.C. LOCATIONS CONSIDERED FOR SECOND EAST COAST SITE FOR FBM SUBMARINES Mr. SHEPPARD. In order to keep the hearings in status of continuity, I am addressing myself now to the Charleston aspect, and I ask you, what locations did you seriously consider as the second east coast site for FBM submarines? Admiral RABORN. That more properly belongs in my province, I think, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SHEPPARD. Very well. Admiral RABORN. Mr. Chairman, I believe we had a study group 21⁄2 or 3 years ago that investigated every possible site on the east coast, bearing in mind the requirements for coastal deepwater channels and deepwater ports. I think some 16 sites were investigated, and a very detailed study as to what was there that could be used and the costs that would be involved in bringing into existence the things which we then thought we needed. We investigated from the point of view of concentration. At that time we had very strict instructions from the Department of Defense, based on instructions from higher authority, which would prevent us from adding new facilities in a port of high concentration. They wanted to disperse activities. The POLARIS weapons system, being a very important one in this program, requiring some years to build up. This did not prevent us from examining all those places. We examined Argentina, Newfoundland, Casco Bay, Maine, Portsmouth, N.H., Hingham, Mass. Mr. SHEPPARD. In order to save time on this thing, the balance of your clarification and response may be put in the record. Admiral RABORN. Very well, sir. (The information requested follows:) The Navy conducted a survey of 16 different possible locations for a POLARIS assembly and outloading station to support submarines deployed from the Atlantic coast. The stations considered included both locations in the continental United States and U.S. controlled stations outside the continental boundaries. The 16 stations surveyed were as follows: Argentia, Newfoundland; Casco Bay, Maine; Portsmouth, N.H.; Hingham, Mass.; Narragansett Bay; New London, Conn.; Earle, N.J.; Yorktown. Va.; Charleston, S.C.; St. Marys; Mayport, Fla.; Key West, Fla.; Roosevelt Roads: St. Thomas; Guantanamo Bay; and Bermuda. The following criteria were utilized in evaluating these possible locations: Safety distance, outside CONUS political implications, cost, use of existing facilities, geographical location, transportation access, and technical support. After a thorough study, the 16 sites were narrowed down to three possible sites, namely: Earle, N.J.; Yorktown, Va.; and Charleston, S.C. Charleston, S.C., was subsequently chosen as the station site for the POLARIS outloading complex due primarily to lesser costs of establishing the facility at this location. REASON FOR SELECTION OF CHARLESTON, S.C., OVER NORFOLK, VA., FOR FBM SITE Mr. SHEPPARD. Why did you select Charleston as the site instead of Norfolk, for example? You must have had some basic reason for that. What was it, please? Admiral RABORN. The reasons we selected Charleston instead of Norfolk were principally twofold: One, Norfolk was on the list at which the Department of Defense discouraged the addition of any new facilities because of high concentration. Secondly, the cost figures involved in putting in the facilities which were then available vis-a-vis what we had to have. Charleston was chosen principally on those two factors, coming out ahead on both. Mr. SHEPPARD. What consideration did you give to the silting problem on the Cooper River at the Charleston site? Admiral RABORN. Yes, sir. We carefully examined that, because we recognized that this would be a problem. We contacted the Corps of Engineers, who have responsibility for keeping that river free, and we were informed by them officially that they had responsibility to keep the river open up to a point just south of the naval ammunition depot there, a place called Goose Creek, and that they were going to keep this open anyway, and that the cost which they then estimated from Goose Creek up to the naval ammunition depot, which we would have to pick up, would run about $330,000 a year, actually coming closer to $400,000. Mr. SHEPPARD. Does the Corps of Engineers maintain from other than naval funds the required depth in the Cooper River project, if you know at the moment? Admiral RABORN. They maintain from other than naval funds. under their own appropriation, the depth of Cooper River up to Goose Creek. Mr. SHEPPARD. Is the work actually performed or is this a statement of fact to be assumed as of tomorrow, next week, or next month? Admiral RABORN. This work is actually performed. Mr. SHEPPARD. Did you include these costs in your cost study? Admiral RABORN. Yes, sir; for the Navy portion. Mr. SHEPPARD. Do sufficient community support facilities, such as housing and recreational facilities, exist in the Charleston area to meet the need of the FBM submarines to be home ported there as well as the other naval and military personnel in the area? Admiral RABORN. Yes, sir. This is one of the factors which was examined very carefully. Mr. SHEPPARD. Do you anticipate the construction of additional naval housing for the Charleston area, either Capehart or otherwise? Admiral RABORN. Yes, sir. Considerable effort has been made to get additional Capehart housing, not only for purposes of FBM submarines but for other naval personnel stationed in that area. Mr. SHEPPARD. Did you include housing costs in your estimate as a part of the potential or the overall? Admiral RABORN. We did not include housing costs. We included housing availability, sir. The examination then clearly showed that of the other competitors, as far as existing civilian housing, it was as good if not better than any place else on this coast. Mr. SHEPPARD. When are the first FBM submarines scheduled to return to the Charleston area for overhaul and repair, as near as you can tell us at the moment? Admiral RABORN. January 1963 is the first one, sir. Mr. SHEPPARD. To what extent do you plan to utilize existing barracks and personnel support facilities at Charleston for the FBM workload? Admiral RABORN. We are using the existing facilities to the maximum extent possible, but may I just digress for a moment? Mr. SHEPPARD. Surely. Admiral RABORN. The requirements to handle the nuclear warhead for the POLARIS requires certain safety conditions, zones, where we have to be so far away from other people, and also the Atomic Energy instructions require an immediate force of guards. In this case, marine guards within the compound where you are guarding the warheads. For this reason, we have to build at the site-which we would have to do anyplace-accommodations for the guards. As the program has expanded we have had to have additional barrack space on the naval ammunition depot site. Mr. SHEPPARD. To what extent have ships and personnel been transferred from Norfolk to Charleston in recent years? Let us go back approximately 5 years for your answer. Admiral RAYBORN. I will vill have to defer that. Admiral SYLVESTER. We will supply that for the record, Mr. Chair man. Mr. SHEPPARD. If you will, please. (The information follows:) Of the presently active ships now permanently home-ported in Charleston, S.C., a total of 12 destroyers and 1 destroyer tender have been transferred there from Norfolk since 1956. Of the present personnel load at Charleston, approximately 3,700 fleet and shore-based personnel have been transferred from Norfolk. CAPABILITY OF NAVAL STATION, NORFOLK, VA., TO ABSORB FBM BUILDUP Mr. SHEPPARD. Do you and local naval authorities at Norfolk feel that the Norfolk area could absorb an FBM submarine buildup completely without any problems involved other than what we have referred to this afternoon? Admiral RABORN. Yes, sir. The reason we chose that is, the construction estimates at Charleston were less than at all other possible sites. There was also the question of the land available as well as air, rail, and truck transportation immediately adjacent to the proposed depot. The Charleston area is not a prime location for the storage of nuclear materials and that was a part of the reason for the concentration. Mr. SHEPPARD. What personnel support facilities, including barracks, exist at the Norfolk Naval Station that could be used for a FBM submarine buildup under the presentation you have made so far? Admiral RABORN. May I supply that for the record? We can track it out from what was existing at that time. Mr. SHEPPARD. All right. (The information follows:) The original study of Yorktown as a possible site for a POLARIS outloading station indicated that adequate administration and personnel support facilities were available at the station. Since the time of the original study the workload at Yorktown has increased to such an extent that these support facilities are not now available for the POLARIS program. COST TO DATE FOR FBM BUILDUP AT NAVAL STATION, CHARLESTON, S.C. Mr. SHEPPARD. What have been the costs to date for the FBM buildup at Charleston, if you know? Admiral MOORE. I think I have that, if you do not. Mr. SHEPPARD. If you will, please. If you do not have it available now, supply it for the record later. Admiral SYLVESTER. We had better supply it for the record, to make sure it is accurate. (The information follows:) Costs of the FBM buildup at Charleston, S.C., to date are as follows: (Excludes Capehart housing construction in the approximate amount of $660,000.) 708110-61-pt. 1-14 Mr. SHEPPARD. What is the cost to complete, including housing, other support facilities, and realistic dredging costs, as they presently prevail? Admiral RABORN. We had better submit that for the record because it will be based on something new now. (The information follows:) In addition to the requirements presented, it is anticipated that the following military construction funds will be required in the Charleston area to support the currently authorized FBM program. Million $3.1 Additional appropriation for graving dock___ Total... 7.150 In addition, an additional $700,000 will be required for the team training facility. Over and beyond the military construction requirements there will be a continuing annual requirement of $400,000 of M. & O. funds to maintain the required depth of the Navy reach of the Cooper River. There are no plans at present for additional family housing units at Charleston in support of the FBM program. COSTS TO GIVE NAVAL STATION, NORFOLK, VA. AS FBM CAPACITY Mr. SHEPPARD. What will be the anticipated costs to renovate the NAD, Yorktown, as an FBM weapons annex? Admiral RABORN. We will supply that for the record. (The information follows:) To provide a fleet ballistic missile annex at the Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, to support a 29 SSBN program would cost approximately $19.85 million of military construction funds. Mr. SHEPPARD. What other costs are required to give Naval Station, Norfolk, an FBM capacity, if any? If you do not have that now, supply it for the record. Admiral MOORE. We have a number of things. This is in the Norfolk area, as far as the shipyard itself is concerned, if that is what you are referring to? Admiral RABORN. No, the NAD. MAINTENANCE OF COOPER RIVER CHANNEL Mr. SHEPPARD. I wish you would supply for the benefit of the committee and for the record, a letter or statement on the Cooper River channel from Goose Creek to the harbor entrance and as to how it will be maintained, and as authorized and required by the Navy with other than naval funds. We should like to have a complete commitment in the record covering that issue. Admiral RABORN. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) The following statement was obtained by telephone from the Army Corps of Engineers. The corps has been requested to verify this statement in a letter to the Navy, a copy of which will be furnished to the committee. The Corps of Engineers is programing in its civil works budget estimates for fiscal year 1962 $1,184.000 to provide for the requirements of Navy and commercial navigation at Charleston Harbor, S.C. |