Long Beach looks to remove Scorpion submarine — the longtime waterfront companion of the Queen Mary

In 1971, the Soviet Navy launched a B-427 attack submarine. The vessel operated as part of the Russian Pacific Fleet until being decommissioned in 1994, sold to a group of businessmen and put on display at the Australian National Maritime Museum for several years.

The submarine was moved to Long Beach in 1998 under the name Podvodnaya Lodka B-427 Scorpion and moored beside the historic Queen Mary, where it has sat for 26 years — 16 as a tourist attraction that could be boarded by visitors and 10 as a rusting eyesore closed to the public.

“I have never heard anybody express a specific affinity for the submarine needing to have the same consideration as the Queen Mary,” said Johnny Vallejo, deputy director of the city’s Economic Development Department. “I think many people felt it was an odd arrangement in the first place.”

Vallejo noted that many people’s adoration for the Queen Mary comes from its historical significance — a 1936 luxury ocean liner turned World War II transport that was the bane of Adolf Hitler’s naval forces. The submarine, however, does not have a notable history — other than a raccoon taking up residence briefly after its closure.

“My preference is to see it gone and have a real nice view,” Vallejo said. “It’s at the bow of the ship, which is a particularly beautiful point of view of the Queen Mary and it’s obstructed by that submarine.”

That is the general consensus and the nexus for a renewed effort to remove the 299-foot-long Russian sub, which began late last year.

In 2021, the city received a draft report outlining options to remove the submarine. The report came just two months after the city assumed full control of the Queen Mary following four decades of failed operators that left the ship in disrepair. Rather than addressing the submarine, officials focused instead on updating the ocean liner to be reopened to the public.

“It’s just basic timing,” Vallejo said. “This is the next step in our management of the asset: trying to focus on the removal of the submarine.”

While the submarine does not belong to the city, it is now on the hook for the millions of dollars it will take to remove it following fruitless efforts to engage with Australia-based steel, aluminum and stainless steel manufacturer North Eastern Welding Co. Pty Ltd., or NEWCO — the absentee owner of the Scorpion.

“We’ve gone the legal route, Vallejo said. “The city attorney’s office has tried to make contact with the ownership … and they’re not responsive.”

The draft 2021 report from Long Beach engineering consultant firm Moffatt & Nichol was sent to city officials on Aug. 9, 2021 and outlined two potential methods for removing the Scorpion: Dismantle it in the water and transport the pieces on a floating barge; or pull it out of the water to the adjacent parking lot where it would be dismantled and moved by truck.

The waterside removal carried a hefty price tag at $21.9 million, while the land-side operation was expected to cost just over $8.6 million.

In November, the city reignited the investigation into how best to move the aging submarine, according to Stephen Figueira, a senior civil engineer with the city’s Tidelands Division. The study also includes updated stability condition and hazardous material assessments.

The previous waterside removal option has already been eliminated due to the high cost, according to Figueira. A third option is now also being explored, which would involve removing a section of the rock wall that surrounds the submarine and Queen Mary so the Scorpion can be towed to another location for dismantling.

“That wasn’t considered in 2021 … because there were no facilities that had expressed interest,” Figueira said, adding that there now are facilities potentially willing to take on the project.

“What we don’t want to happen is if we tow this, that it starts crumbling and pollutes the water,” Figueira added, noting that this option will only be viable if the new assessment shows the submarine is structurally sound enough for the journey.

The report is once again being put together by Moffatt & Nichol, which also enlisted a naval architect and environmental specialist. Reports from the subcontractors are expected to be completed in the next few weeks, Figueira said, with the completed recommendations from Moffatt & Nichol expected, hopefully, by this fall.

The city has allocated $275,000 to the project, which is funding the current study as well as additional studies, including a geotechnical survey, as the removal effort proceeds, Figueira said.

Even when the studies are completed, a timeline for actual removal is murky, Vallejo said, noting that funding is an issue. The city has not identified any money for the actual removal of the submarine, he said, but staff is looking into potential state and federal funding.

Additionally, the removal project is subject to a rigorous permitting process that will include the Army Corps of Engineers as well as the California Coastal Commission, which can add significant amounts of time if there is any pushback.

“If everything goes swimmingly, 18 to 24 months for permitting with all those agencies,” Figueira said. “We’re doing our due diligence up front.

“This isn’t something that people do every day,” Figueira continued. “It’s pretty unique. It’s an exciting project but we want to make sure that we’re doing it right.”