Work has started on the third and final phase of the project to dismantle ex-HMS Swiftsure. As the demonstrator project for the dismantling programme, she will be the first former RN SSN to be fully disposed of.
The glacial project to safely scrap the growing fleet of decommissioned boats has finally begun to make some progress at Rosyth in the last few years. Each submarine will undergo a three-step process which involves Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) being removed first. The second and most demanding stage involves the removal of the Reactor Pressure Vessel that holds the reactor core and is classed as Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste (ILW).
The final stage is to ensure the submarine is completely free of radioactivity and radioactive material as well as removing any remaining elements that are classified. At this point, the submarine can be cut up and around 90% of the remaining material, mainly steel and other metals, can either be reused or undergo conventional recycling. Swiftsure appears to be slightly ahead of the initial schedule, having completed Phase 1 (December 2016 – August 2018) and now Phase 2.

Swiftsure’s disposal is a notable achievement as the first Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) anywhere in the world to be dismantled. Other nations use a much simpler process and cut the entire reactor compartment out of the submarine and transport it structurally complete for burial in land storage facilities. The US has successfully disposed of over 130 nuclear ships and submarines since the 1980s. The Russians have disposed of over 190 Soviet-era boats (with some international assistance) since the 1990s while France has already disposed of 3 boats from their much smaller numbers.

Besides the progress with Swifsure, LLW has been safely removed from ex-HMS Resolution, Revenge and Repulse. As experience has been gained working on successive boats techniques have been refined and more waste has been managed to final disposal at reduced cost. The optimisation of the process allowed 50% greater tonnage of waste to be removed in 75% of the time it took for Swiftsure. So far the work has been completed safely on budget and on time. Work has yet to begin on ex-HMS Dreadnought, Churchill and Renown still afloat in the basin at Rosyth.
While there is positive progress at Rosyth, 14 Dock at Devonport is still not ready to accept the first boat to begin defuelling and dismantling. There are now 15 decommissioned submarines filling up the basins in Plymouth (soon to be 16 when HMS Triumph goes in 2025). Work to get rid of this legacy cannot start soon enough. At least the lessons learned in Rosyth should give the teams at Devonport an advantage although the majority of these boats still have their nuclear fuel on board and will have to undergo a 4-stage process.
Thanks for that. Interesting earlier background from 2 years back
https://www.navylookout.com/project-to-dismantle-ex-royal-navy-nuclear-submarines-inches-forward/
It seems that a number of the boats have been long out of commission but still have the nuclear fuel ( as of 2022)
This process is presumably much more expensive than the US method. Why is the cash strapped RN going for gold standard?
I wanted an an answer to that very question, thought I might find it on the NAO site, I didn’t but NAO it did explain a lot of other things.
Kicking the can comes to mind.
It’s really simple. We don’t have the equivalent of the Hanford trench, which is the on land repository, in a nuclear reservation, for their encased RPV.
We also have a slightly more hysterical antinuclear movement than the cousins.
I have wondered if it would be more cost effective to pay the Americans to do it for us? Would you think that’s an option?
Not possible. The US congress – in a piece of stunning perspicacity – made it illegal to accept foreign nuclear waste. That was done to actively prevent the good ideas club from offering to help solve the Murmansk/Novaya Zemlya/Vladivostok problems by helping that nice Mr Yeltsin with his ongoing environmental catastrophe.
Not often pollies are ahead of the game, but credit where its due.
Fascinating. Thanks for answering.
The size of the UK compared to the US, Russia and even france would make this a more challenging prospect. No handily placed deserts for a start
The original plan was to store the whole reactor section until it had cooled (radioactivity wise) or technology caught up with the task. But in a pretty similar way with a bullied welded over each end.
Others are right this is the gold standard disposal method with costs to match.
I’m pro nuclear energy and submarines. But I do have to wonder about what is being done here.
Dont need a ‘surface’ desert
In Yorkshire they are building a potash mine which is 4600 ft below ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulby_Mine
Salt domes are other ‘underground deserts’
And right there is evidence you’re not a Brit. If you were, you’d know that the only reason said mine – currently stalled by it’s developer last I looked – was going ahead was quality mining jobs and port export.
Just try floating the idea of a nuclear repository instead and watch the Yorkies collectively lose their minds. That’s before you get to Greenpeace let alone FoE. They did for UK ship recycling on spurious grounds, nuclear will send them into overdrive.
Yes a nuclear repository under a national park….and near Whitby is not going to float anyones boat….
But we also are going to have to build a nuclear repository at some point…I’ve never been clear on what Greenpeace and FoE’s (although both are much diminished recently due to their more energetic elements moving to JSO etc…) end game is…they know we have to have a repository at some point.
Hmmmm. I’m not sure they do.
I suspect they think we don’t need it by simply wishing it away, just like they believe we don’t need anything beyond solar/wind/tidal to generate power.
..or meltdown?
That would be ecologically unsound…..
You are wrong about the Boultby potash mine – its currently working and since 1968or so
Using the internet shows there is a Woodsmith potash mine project thats stalled- who knew
The point of the deep underground depository is that its suitable in such places
Listen to the naysayers and no road or even major hospital would be built
Hows this for deep
Lucky Friday silver-lead-zinc mine in Idaho its main shaft down to 2627m or 8600ft
Boultby mine photo below
You found a different mine. Well done you.
The basic problem of public approval still applies though. Not a cat in hells chance.
I found the working mine as an example of deep shafts and tunnels in a geologic stable formation. Your claims about me are just as absurd- much like many other claims to authority on some item.
Its a million times better than sitting on the surface at a naval base. Yes there will be fuss at the start, but these things pass.
Where I live and 16 houses with a shared private driveway a neighbour objected over the fibre optic cable being laid as she was ‘anti 5G’.
“ Lucky Friday silver-lead-zinc mine in Idaho its main shaft down to 2627m or 8600ft”
How is that relevant?
Last time I checked Idaho wasn’t in the UK?
Potash mines would be a useless repository as the potash is soluble, in fact potash is usually extracted by hot fluid working.
In a geological nuclear store you need no water flow or possibility so there is no chance of nasties being leached out.
Not ‘usually’
Yorkshire deep potash mines arent solution mined , its extracted by tunnels and shafts- the clue is in the method
Apparently the different types of potash decide the method, and the solution mined stuff ( sulphate of potash) is only a small share of the market and too deep for shafts
Salt domes are another geologic formation thats suitable for nuclear storage
Your geologic thinking is wrong also , since the potash and salt exist at depth its a guarantee that water hasnt dissolved it away at geologic time scales – much longer than a blink of the eye 5000 yrs
You havent thought through any of this at all.
That is quite funny given what I used to do for a living.
But never mind.
Keep up the Googling…
The Yorkshire facility is actually ore mined , you didnt seem to know that, do try to keep up from something long back.
Canada is the world largest potash production, all in Saskatchewan. The largest company there is Nutrien ( 20 mill tons pa) with 6 different facilities, only one is a solution mine
If you knew anything about geological nuclear repositories you would understand the substantial flaw in what you have written.
You can’t just Google something very technical and start arguing.
The point is leachate and seam mobility – try Googling that.
Perhaps because the tiny little island we inhabit does not afford the same disposal privileges landsize wise that our larger nefarious brethren enjoy.🤔
Thank you NL
Investigation into submarine defueling and dismantlingReport – Value for money
Date: 3 Apr 2019
An interesting read,
… Background to the report
The Ministry of Defence (the Department) uses nuclear-powered submarines, including those with and without nuclear weapons, to meet its operational requirements. Since 1980, it has removed 20 submarines from service and replaced them with newer ones. It has committed to handling the resultant nuclear liabilities responsibly and disposing of submarines “as soon as reasonably practicable”. Disposal includes removing the irradiated nuclear fuel (defueling), safely storing submarines, taking out the radioactive parts (dismantling), and then recycling the boat.
To date, the Department has not yet disposed of any of its 20 retired submarines, with nine of them still containing irradiated fuel. The Department plans to take a further three submarines out of service over the next decade. The Department stores out‑of‑service submarines at dockyards in Devonport (Devon) and Rosyth (Fife), which the nuclear regulators have assessed as safe.
https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/investigation-into-submarine-defueling-and-dismantling/
Also saw these reports on NAO –
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ministry-of-defence-overview-2023-24.pdf
https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/equipment-plan-2023-to-2033/#downloads
https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/defence-inventory-management/
or do your own search at the National Audit Office . org . uk
… google it.
Lost an earlier post of links, will repost them singly.
Defence inventory managementReport – Value for money
Date: 13 Sep 2023
https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/equipment-plan-2023-to-2033/#downloads
Report – Value for money
The Equipment Plan 2023 to 2033Date: 4 Dec 2023
https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/equipment-plan-2023-to-2033/#downloads
Google it.
Takes so long
A Lifetime.
Why is it being done in the two locations? Why not just the one?
in case scotland get independence nope real reason as with pole tax try it in scotland first then move it all down south and sack scottish workers who made the process safe
Not really though.
As poor an argument as you’re spelling and grammar.
Your
Too silly for words, typical of SNP muddled thinking
1984 Rosyth closen for nuclear submarine decom
1993 switched to Devonport by tory government as they proposed privatising HMNB ( Babcock already had the management contract)
1997 was the devolution referendum which passed – after the shift from Rosyth!
The possibility of a Scottish government didnt even exist 1993
Interesting that Government of Scotland Bill passed some stages in the Commons 1913 but like the similar Home Rule Government of Ireland act of 1914 was dropped by the start of WW1
The real reason is that when the first boats were being decommissioned, both Rosyth and Devonport were nuclear certified sites. The boats at Rosyth were defuelled there while Rosyth was still active as a nuclear site. When all nuclear work switched to Devonport in 1993, the nuclear certification for Rosyth was not renewed, hence no more boats there.
They’ve stayed there since, purely because there is so little space available in Devonport, noting that all four R-boats (which are nigh-on 50m longer than an SSN) would be a real struggle to fit in 3 basin in Devonport.
People have actually looked at towing dead boats either north or south, but its a bit of a risky endeavour. Not least because the boats fittings aren’t rated for ocean tow.
The first recyclings are being done in Rosyth (with limited nuclear recertification) because the boats there are all defuelled and the docks are available.
Defueling the long dormant boats is the main process that will need to be certified for the Devonport part of the operation.
Simply down to Storage Space.
Wasn’t HMSM Dreadnought from the 1960s the first Nuclear sub to be disposed of?
That ones still around
Easier to start the process on a newer boat in what is likely better condition. You’re less likely to encounter issues that bring the process grinding to a halt before it really gets going
Dreadnought had a US reactor inside a british designed hull and machinery, Valiant was the 1st all British one
Dreadnought is class of 1. She’s the oldest vessel and has a lot of secondary systems contamination. Swiftsure had the shortest commission and is a good vessel to prove the processes needed to safely decommission these old boats.
You can’t ignore the role of ONR in the development of the process, or the penury of the RN in funding.
Successive governments have preferred to limit available funding to avoid further delays to the production of new boats.
Exactly this – choose an easy one to do first to gain confidence and experience.
Not that this is really that easy!
All
Several key background points:
So:
Finally, please do not forget what the editor of Navy Lookout was far too polite to mention in this latest piece – namely that Babcock are stil officially on the Naughty Step with the oforementioned Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR): – and they have been stood on that naughty step for quite a few years now…
One can expect more articles – on delays and cost overruns etc – to follow “soon”
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
You rightly point out the loss of Crown immunity changed the two standard answers to everything.
– we are the RN we know what we are doing; and
– OSA – nuclear – need to know
That had previously been the core rational for a range of debacles some of which we can talk about…
The idea of the old deformed nuclear sub on a barge is tempting but it is a change of environment so would need a full H&S case.
Personally I would
– defuel the reactor fully
– take it to Rosyth
– chop the ends off
– weld a stout bulkhead over each end
– leave at Drigg as a resource for future generations
Which is as you say back to plan ‘A’.
The biggest problem is getting it to Drigg.
Supportive Bloke
You are thinking on exactly the same lines as me.
However
However, one final set of comments now needs to be added.
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
I must go now….I want to win the lucrative MOD contract for supplying them the numerous large lorryloads of circular metal cutting disks for the one, and only, 9 inch diameter angler-grinder being used on this project (i.e. as shown in the NL photo above…..) – that must be the next PPE procurement scandal…
Ah, those loose submarines in the deep.
“all now buying new, and totally unproven, nukes”
No they arent.
Microsofts deal is with an existing nuclear plant in Pennsylvania thats dormant. It just needs to be approved to restart.
Theres nothing unproven about small reactors- thats how nuclear plants used to be sized – 400-600MW each reactor
Nor is high temperature gas cooled reactors unproven which is the X-energy module
In fact small reactors are the focus of this story , in a nuclear submarine. Is that unproven ? Although they work with HEU which is a no no for civilain plants , all low enriched
The modular nuclear reactors are Gen IV – Magnox, which you are obliquely referring to was Gen I.
Very different beasties.
There are no Gen IV nuclear reactors under 1MW in service.
Now I’d agree that a lot of nuclear engineering is now well bottomed out by the likes of RR. But PWR3 is a new thing to them. We all know #1 Carrie’s the risks and as with hulling new warships or whatever things get easier as the kinks are ironed out.
So yes, Gen IV small reactors are strictly speaking unproven but is it really a big risk? No, it isn’t as most of the nuclear engineering is the same and that comes with decades of experience as to how to do it.
Where I’m more sanguine is with the new entrants who seem to think building SMR’s is easy because nuclear was done decades ago…look at all the issues EDF has got with its designs and they have loads of experience with reactors.
Thanks for that.
X-energy is just one design approach and thats in US – Amazon is a part funder of their development but its not a certainty any thing will come from it. The share of the money is chickenfeed for Amazon. Googles partner Kairos is some sort of molten salt heat transfer is different again.
For Britain , RR just used the PWR tech from its submarine development and similar for 100s land based commercial reactors
I looked a bit into whats publicly known about PWR3 development, which only seems generic.
What they said was the RN has had around 80 reactor cores for its submarines since Dreadnought. There isnt 80 subs, but it does suggest that previously what was thought to be a refuelling- the nuclear fuel rods are replaced – is actually a full core replacement.
Civil reactors with LEU of course just replace the fuel rods and quite often.
I’d meant GW in the above but that should have been pretty obvious from the context.
Duker
The very old nuclear power plant which those world-leading AI experts at Microsoft are now buying – with the truely hare-brained idea of restarting it – is the existing Three Mile Island nuclear plant:
…..or rather: the “notorious” Three Mile Island nuclear plant…
Back in early 1979, so back when you were still a figment of your parent’s imagination….. Hollywood released an epic blockbuster film called “The China Syndrome” : one staring the very curvey anti-nuclear protestor, actress Jane Fonda.
That term China Sydrome was the hithertoo entirely theoretical one = the term for when a super-heated nuclear core melts through the base of a power plant in the US of A – and thus it starts to “head down south” , through the Earth, heading towards China…
One Saturday, this particular US nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island suffered a small issue:
Three Mile Island “almost did” a Chenobyl, or Fu*kishima (note 1)
————————–
The final US official investigation into this near-disaster said – and I am now only slightly paraphrasing their key words – that the senior nuclear design engineer for Westinghouse was (eventually) phoned at his home at about 2pm. He then, quite correctly, advised the plant operators of the correct course of action:
Had he not told them what to do that, then – without any doubt within just a few hours – there definitely would have been a total meltdown of the plant’s nuclear core…
(..which is precisely what happened to the Soviet’s at Chernobuyl a few years later = hence why the Soviet Union no longer exists….)
———————————
However, what the official inquiry did not point out to the great mass of the unwashed general public was what that very-same senior nucear design engineer had originally said – on the final summary page of his original long statement which he had given to that far-reaching inquiry
Once again, I am only very slightly paraphrasing his words:
“Overall, I consider that it was very fortunate that my two teenage son’s Junior League baseball team was playing at home that weekend. Had they been playing their key game away, then my family would have already have left our home about thirty minutes before that phone call came in (i.e. to him, from the panicing plant operators over at Three Mile Island…. )
and please remember, it was a landline call
…..because mobile phones had not been invented yet,,
Thus Three Mile Island remains one, of several, very good examples why one should never let little kids play with nuclear reactors or, come to mention it, play with nuclear weapons.
Overall, nukes are, strictly, only for us grown-ups to play with….
i.e. nukes come with what Hollywood calls an 18+ certification…
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
Note 1: Fu*kishima
I was one of the original crew of the Swiftsure I was on her during her laying of the first plate during her full build and subsequent sea trials and subsequent entry into the fleet she was the first of her type her crew was made up very smart and intelligent individuals and her captain was the most highly versatile individual and his background before joining us was highly regarded it is sad to see her scrapped but that is the lifetime of most submarines and ships farewell and following seas my old friend. JOHN P