The Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) program was an ambitious modernization initiative undertaken by the U.S. Navy from the late 1950s through the mid-1960s. While FRAM successfully transformed hundreds of aging World War II-era destroyers into capable Cold War combatants, extending their service lives came at a cost. With asbestos used extensively in the original construction of these ships and still in use at the time of the renovation work, the act of tearing into their structures, removing obsolete systems, and installing new ones raised significant concentrations of the toxic material, exposing shipyard workers and any Navy personnel in the area to the risk of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.
The History of FRAM
The idea of the Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization program originated with World War II destroyer commander Admiral Arleigh Burke. Burke won acclaim for his actions as a destroyer squadron commander in the Pacific theater during World War II. While serving as Chief of Naval Operations in 1956, he published an essay titled “The Ageing Fleet” that suggested saving the destroyers and making them capable of facing the modern Soviet submarine threat.[1]
At the time that the article was written, the Cold War had significantly shifted America’s view of its naval power. With over 300 Soviet fast-attack submarines in service by 1957, the country’s destroyer fleet was viewed as absolute, but deep cuts in defense spending put the construction of an entirely new destroyer fleet out of reach. Admiral Burke’s solution was to rebuild rather than replace. He suggested both overhauling the destroyers’ existing equipment and installing new, state-of-the-art weapons systems.
The result was FRAM. The program’s rebuilds ran from 1959 through 1965. By the time FRAM was discontinued, 168 U.S. Navy destroyers had been reconstructed or modernized. FRAM was an effective bridge that allowed the Navy’s existing destroyer fleet to be useful long enough for new, purpose-built vessels to take their place.
FRAM I and FRAM II: Two Levels of Transformation
There were two levels of FRAM—FRAM Mark I and FRAM Mark II. The two phases differed in both the scope of work involved and the degree of disruption to the existing shipboard materials—including the asbestos that had been built into every system.[2] FRAM Mark I was primarily developed for the Gearing-class destroyers. It represented a complete reconstruction of the ship that was far more extensive than FRAM II.[2]
FRAM I
FRAM I extended the life of the destroyers by eight years. It rebuilt the ships’ superstructures, rehabilitating the engines and electronics and installing ASROC, DASH, the SQS-23 sonar system, new air-search and surface-search radar, and two triple Mark 32 torpedo launchers. To accommodate a new anti-submarine rocket launcher, one of each ship’s original twin 5-inch gun mounts was removed, requiring significant structural work.
FRAM II
FRAM II was developed primarily for the Sumner class but also included most versions of the Gearings. It was more of a modernization program than a complete reconstruction. A typical FRAM II project extended a destroyer’s useful life by about five years and installed DASH, Mark 32 torpedo launchers, new air search and surface search radar, and variable-depth sonar.
Both FRAM I and FRAM II required workers to work extensively with the ships’ existing structures, removing outdated equipment and installing cutting-edge systems. Some ships were completely overhauled, including receiving new engines, new weapons systems, and other improvements. All of this activity involved disturbing a significant amount of the asbestos-containing materials that were originally installed in the destroyers when they were built in the 1940s.
FRAM’s New Weapons Systems
The weapons systems that gave the destroyers the capability they needed against the Soviet submarine threat were ASROC and DASH.
ASROC, the Anti-Submarine Rocket, provided destroyers with an anti-submarine warfare system for ranges of one to five miles. DASH, the Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter, was a 900-pound coaxial drone helicopter with anti-submarine ranges up to 22 miles. While both delivered the Mark-44 torpedo, DASH had the distinctive benefit of being able to be recalled if the target turned out to be friendly. It was also reusable.[2]
Installing these systems aboard ships that had never been designed to accommodate them required extensive modification. Helicopter decks and hangars had to be built, new sonar domes needed to be installed below the ships’ waterlines, launch systems were integrated into existing deck layouts, and entirely new electronics were wired into the ships. Because the original systems, equipment, and structure dated back to the 1940s, every phase of the work disturbed asbestos, including in the ships’ insulation, gaskets, and structural materials.
The Dangers of Asbestos Throughout the Destroyer Fleet
It wasn’t until decades later that the tragic impact of the FRAM project became apparent. The overhauls were a significant source of asbestos exposure to shipyard workers, as well as to any Navy personnel in the area during the process. The Navy had mandated the use of asbestos in hundreds of shipboard applications to take advantage of its heat and fire resistance, durability, chemical stability, and low cost. By the time FRAM began, the asbestos contained in boiler and engine rooms, equipment, and structural elements had been spread throughout the destroyers for fifteen years or more, leaving fibers contaminating every area of the ships.
Asbestos appeared throughout these ships in pipe insulation, boiler lagging, turbine casing wrap, deck and flooring materials, adhesive compounds, gaskets, packing seals, firefighting equipment, and the thermal protection surrounding virtually every hot-running component. It was woven into the electrical systems, present in structural panels, and integrated into spaces throughout the ship. While the highest concentrations were found in engineering spaces, including the boiler rooms, engine compartments, and turbine areas, the mineral’s presence extended into virtually every compartment of the vessel.
The historic extent of asbestos use in Navy vessels meant that any deep structural work on the destroyers inevitably encountered and disturbed it. Removing a gun mount, rebuilding a superstructure, installing a new weapons system, or rewiring electrical circuits all required workers to cut, drill, tear out, and handle asbestos-containing materials in one form or another. For instance, the original electrical wiring found on the ships. The standard protocol for Navy wiring at the time the ships were built bundled copper conductors wrapped in carcinogen-impregnated paper alongside asbestos filament inside crosswoven cloth insulation.[3] Over the decades, that cloth became brittle and began to crumble. Auditors who assessed the aging ships found that the insulation would likely remain stable if left undisturbed—but FRAM’s modernization disturbed the material. This is just one example of how comprehensively the mineral had been incorporated throughout the ships that were now being systematically opened up and rebuilt.
FRAM Before the Supreme Court
Though it took years, the impact of asbestos exposure associated with FRAM-era naval service was eventually recognized by both the Armed Services and the legal system. In Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, a case that reached the United States Supreme Court, the conditions aboard FRAM-converted Navy vessels were cited in support of holding equipment manufacturers liable for asbestos-related harm suffered by sailors. The case involved Navy veterans who had served aboard ships during and after FRAM modernization and who had subsequently developed malignant mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos-containing components.[4]
The surviving family members of the deceased veterans provided detailed information showing that the machinery supplied by manufacturers to the Navy required asbestos-containing parts to function, that the equipment’s maintenance manuals directed sailors to perform tasks that disturbed those materials, and that manufacturers had failed to warn of the dangers of inhaling the dust that resulted from following the manufacturers’ instructions.[4] This information made clear that rebuilding the ships to meet the needs of Cold War deterrence had come at a terrible cost to many veterans and shipyard workers.
The Shipyards Where FRAM Happened
FRAM overhauls were conducted at naval shipyards across the country, each of which had its own history of asbestos use and eventual asbestos-related disease diagnoses. Because the Boston Naval Shipyard had an extensive history of building destroyers, it was assigned responsibility for the modification of many of the ships identified for the FRAM project.
Other facilities that conducted FRAM work included:
- Philadelphia Naval Shipyard
- Norfolk Navy Yard
- Charleston Naval Yard
- New York Naval Shipyard
- Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
Private contractors were also enlisted in the effort. No matter what facility, shipyard employees at these facilities worked with no protection against the asbestos fibers released into the air by their work. They inhaled those fibers, and in many cases, the particles became embedded in their lungs. The resulting cell death and mutations eventually led to significant and deadly diseases, including malignant mesothelioma, asbestos-related lung cancer, and asbestosis.
The End of FRAM and the Recognition of Its Costs
The FRAM program formally concluded in 1965, having rebuilt or modernized 168 destroyers that went on to serve in Vietnam, to conduct Cold War patrols, and to participate in operations around the globe for years beyond their original expected useful life. But the program’s true costs did not become clear until the 1980s, when the public became aware of the dangers of asbestos exposure. The growing recognition led to a broader realization within the Navy that other proposed Service Life Extension Programs would subject workers and crew members to carcinogens that were only stable as long as the vessels remained undisturbed, and even then posed a significant threat..
Many of the manufacturers who had supplied the asbestos-containing products for these ships had known about their dangers for decades, but chose to suppress and ignore the information in order to continue earning money. Their decision to put profit ahead of people’s health left the Navy, shipyard workers, and the sailors who crewed the rebuilt destroyers without the warnings that could have saved their lives. The decision in the above-referenced Supreme Court case affirmed that manufacturers have a duty to warn users of foreseeable hazards their products create, and that many of the asbestos manufacturers had failed to meet this duty of care.
Asbestos Exposure Risks to FRAM Veterans and Shipyard Workers
Malignant mesothelioma has a long latency period. That means that between two and five decades can go by between initial asbestos exposure and symptoms of the disease appearing. Workers who participated in FRAM overhauls in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and sailors who served aboard FRAM-converted vessels through the 1960s and 1970s, may only now be faced with diagnoses tied to that service. Of the approximately 3,500 Americans who receive a mesothelioma diagnosis each year, roughly one-third are Navy veterans. The disproportion of this statistic is a reflection of the extreme concentration of asbestos experienced by those who served on Navy ships built before the 1980s.
Those at the greatest risk from FRAM-related exposure include the shipyard workers who performed demolition, insulation removal, structural modification, and installation work during conversions and sailors who were present near or on ships during FRAM conversions. More broadly, Navy veterans who worked in ships’ engineering spaces and machinery compartments in the years following conversion were at continued risk from both deteriorating original materials and newly installed equipment that contained the toxic material. Secondary exposure to fibers carried through the ship’s environment on clothing, skin, and hair also created risk, even to those who did not work in contaminated areas.
Support and Compensation for those Affected by FRAM Asbestos Exposure
Health Monitoring
Anyone who worked on or served aboard a FRAM-converted destroyer—whether as a shipyard employee during a FRAM overhaul or as a crew member in the years that followed—should make sure that their physician documents their exposure history in their permanent medical records. Asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma, asbestosis, and related lung conditions often develop silently over many years. Thoughtful medical monitoring increases the chance of early detection, and that can meaningfully expand treatment options and improve long-term outcomes.
VA Benefits
Navy veterans who served aboard FRAM-converted destroyers and have since been diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness may be eligible for Department of Veterans Affairs benefits. The VA recognizes shipboard asbestos exposure during military service as a service-connected cause of disease, and has designated malignant mesothelioma as a condition warranting a 100% disability rating. Veterans who can establish the connection between their FRAM-era service and their diagnosis may qualify for disability compensation and access to specialized care at VA medical facilities throughout the country.
Seeking Legal Assistance
Beyond VA benefits, veterans and shipyard workers who developed mesothelioma or other asbestos-related conditions as a result of FRAM-era exposure may have grounds to pursue legal claims for compensation against the manufacturers and suppliers of the asbestos-containing products used during those overhauls. As the DeVries case before the Supreme Court made clear, these manufacturers had both the knowledge of asbestos’s dangers and the legal obligation to warn users of the dangers their products created.
As a result of years of asbestos litigation in which juries ruled against them, many of those manufacturers have sought bankruptcy protection. As a condition of that protection, they were required to fund dedicated asbestos compensation trusts. There are currently over 60 of these trusts, valued at over $30 billion, that continue to compensate eligible claimants. An attorney experienced in asbestos litigation can evaluate your specific exposure history, identify the responsible parties connected to the shipyards and vessels involved in your service, and advise you on your legal options and relevant filing deadlines.
References
View All References
