[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1914]
[Federal Register: January 28, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Finding of No Significant Impact; Short-Term Storage of Naval
Spent Fuel; Availability for Public Review
summary: The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program has prepared an
Environmental Assessment of short-term storage of Naval spent nuclear
fuel. The preferred alternative is the ``No Action'' alternative. Naval
spent fuel removed from nuclear powered ships would be retained in
shipping containers at five shipyards: Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in
Kittery, Maine; Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Virginia; Newport
News Shipbuilding in Newport News, Virginia; Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
in Bremerton, Washington; and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii. Naval spent fuel also would remain in the Surface Ship
Support Barge at Newport News Shipbuilding. The Department of Energy
(DOE), with the Navy as a cooperating agency, is preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement on longer-term storage of all DOE spent
fuel, including Naval spent fuel. The time period evaluated in the
short-term storage Environmental Assessment is the period through
implementation of the Record of Decision for the DOE Environmental
Impact Statement.
The Environmental Assessment discusses alternatives to the
preferred alternative and evaluates the environmental impacts of both
the preferred and other alternatives. The Environmental Assessment
concludes that the environmental impact of any of the alternatives
would be very small. Therefore, there is no basis for determining that
any of these alternatives would be environmentally preferable to the
others. The No Action alternative, which is the preferred alternative,
would allow all shipyard work, including refueling and defueling of
nuclear powered ships, to continue unimpeded by the short-term
accumulation of Naval spent fuel.
The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program provided a draft of this
Environmental Assessment to officials of Virginia, Maine, New
Hampshire, Washington, and Hawaii for review and comment. Letters were
received from Congressman Norm Dicks of Washington and Mr. T.R. Strong
of the State of Washington Department of Health, both of whom agreed
that the No Action alternative is appropriate, and Mr. Brian Choy of
the State of Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control, who had no
comment.
Mr. Strong suggested that the Navy and the State of Washington
collaborate in monitoring of radiation levels in the vicinity of Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard and share results of past radiation monitoring.
The Program agreed with these suggestions. Mr. Strong also suggested
that the Navy pro-actively inform the public of its plans, emphasizing
that this is a short-term measure, and not in consideration as a long-
term solution. In the letters seeking State comments on the
Environmental Assessment, the Navy stated that if the Environmental
Assessment justified a Finding of No Significant Impact, the Navy would
make the Finding available for public review prior to a final
determination. Accordingly, the Program is making this Finding and the
Environmental Assessment available to State and local officials, the
news media, and the public for a 30 day comment period. The
Environmental Assessment on short-term storage of Naval spent fuel
evaluates short-term storage only, and the Finding of No Significant
Impact would only cover short-term storage. However, it should be noted
that long-term storage at shipyards is one of the alternatives being
considered for Naval spent fuel in a separate Environmental Impact
Statement which DOE is preparing with Navy assistance on spent fuel
management.
Based on the analysis in the Environmental Assessment, the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program considers that the preferred alternative is
not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment, within the meaning of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). In accordance with the
Council on Environmental Quality regulations which allow agencies to
determine circumstances under which public review of Findings of No
Significant Impact are appropriate, the Program is making this Finding
available for public comment for a period of 30 days following the date
of Federal Register publication of this notice. Comments postmarked
within the 30 day public comment period will be considered by the
Program prior to a final determination. To facilitate review of this
matter, copies of the Environmental Assessment have been placed in
public libraries in the vicinity of the five shipyards. Additionally,
persons desiring a copy of the Environmental Assessment may request one
from the address indicated below.
dates: Comments on the Finding of No Significant Impact may be sent to
Mr. Richard A. Guida, Associate Director for Regulatory Affairs, Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program at the address indicated below. Comments
must be postmarked within the 30 day public comment period to ensure
consideration.
addresses and further information: Persons requesting additional
information on the Finding of No Significant Impact for short-term
storage of Naval spent fuel, the National Environmental Policy Act
process associated with this preferred alternative, or wishing a copy
of the Environmental Assessment should contact Ms. Lisa Megargle, Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program, Code NAVSEA 08U, Naval Sea Systems Command,
2521 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22242-5160, (703-603-6126).
Persons desiring to review the Environmental Assessment at a public
library should contact the Public Information Office at Portsmouth
(207-438-1260), Norfolk (804-396-9550), Puget Sound (206-476-7111), or
Pearl Harbor (808-474-0272) Naval Shipyards.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program is a joint Navy/Department of
Energy (DOE) organization responsible for all matters pertaining to
Naval nuclear propulsion. The Program is responsible for the nuclear
propulsion plants aboard more than 120 warships powered by over 140
Naval reactors; two moored training ships used for Naval nuclear
propulsion plant operator training; nuclear work performed at eight
shipyards; two DOE government-owned laboratories devoted solely to
Naval nuclear propulsion research, development, and design; and eight
land-based prototype Naval reactors used for research and development
work and training of Naval nuclear propulsion plant operators.
Beginning in 1957, spent fuel removed from nuclear powered ships
and prototypes has been sent to the Expended Core Facility for
examination to evaluate its performance and confirm design and
operational predictions. The Expended Core Facility is part of the
Naval Reactors Facility which is located within the DOE Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory.
The Federal Government has been involved in litigation with the
State of Idaho regarding spent nuclear fuel issues at the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory in Idaho. The Navy became involved in
this lawsuit when Idaho requested an injunction in 1992 against
shipments of all spent fuel, including Naval fuel, until DOE completed
an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental
Policy Act evaluating activities involving all spent nuclear fuel at
the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
On June 28, 1993, the Federal District Court in Idaho granted the
State of Idaho's request for an injunction and directed DOE to evaluate
``The direct and indirect environmental effects of all major federal
actions involving the transportation, receipt, processing, and storage
of spent nuclear fuel at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.''
Furthermore, the Court Order directed DOE to consider the alternative
of ``transporting, receiving, processing, and storing spent nuclear
fuel at sites other than the [Idaho] National Engineering Laboratory.''
The DOE is separately preparing an Environmental Impact Statement
on spent nuclear fuel management throughout the DOE, which includes
Naval spent fuel. The Navy is a cooperating agency in this effort. The
DOE Environmental Impact Statement will evaluate alternatives for
managing Naval spent fuel from 1995 through 2035, and will consider
Naval Shipyards and other sites for this purpose. A previous Federal
Register announcement provides further information (Vol. 58, No. 170,
page 46951). The DOE Environmental Impact Statement is scheduled to be
published in April 1995 with a Record of Decision by June 1, 1995.
Preferred Alternative
If no action were taken, loaded Naval spent fuel shipping
containers would accumulate at five shipyards: Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard in Kittery, Maine; Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth,
Virginia; Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport News, Virginia; Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington; and Pearl Harbor Naval
Shipyard in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Naval spent fuel also would remain in
the Surface Ship Support Barge at Newport News Shipbuilding. The No
Action alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would allow all
shipyard work, including refueling and defueling of nuclear powered
ships, to continue unimpeded by the short-term accumulation of Naval
spent fuel.
Consolidation Alternative
Under the Consolidation alternative, Naval spent nuclear fuel in
shipping containers would be consolidated at Norfolk Naval Shipyard on
the east coast and at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for the Pacific Ocean
shipyards. The Surface Ship Support Barge would remain in use at
Newport News Shipbuilding. All other shipyard work, including refueling
and defueling of nuclear powered ships, would continue unimpeded under
the Consolidation alternative. However, this alternative offers no
operational advantages to the Navy compared to the No Action
alternative, and it would entail otherwise unnecessary shipping of
naval spent fuel.
Moored Ship Alternative
Under the Moored Ship alternative, nuclear powered ship
inactivations would be deferred. The nuclear propulsion plants would be
taken to a cold shutdown condition and physically modified to prevent
reactor operation, such as by eliminating the capability to withdraw
control rods. Only the ship systems necessary to support eventual
defueling would be maintained. The ship would be tied up at a pier
within the controlled industrial area of the shipyard where it was
scheduled to be defueled. Reduced crews would provide surveillance and
necessary maintenance of the ships.
The Moored Ship alternative has operational disadvantages compared
to the No Action and Consolidation alternatives. It would disrupt
shipyard work schedules, idle skilled shipyard defueling and
inactivation workers, and utilize highly trained Navy nuclear ship
operators in the unproductive task of watching over shut down ships.
Other Alternatives
There are no other alternatives for short-term storage of Naval
spent fuel which could be implemented within the time frame under
consideration. Alternatives which were considered but found to be
impractical for short-term storage included (1) shipment to Idaho as in
the past, which is precluded by the Federal District Court injunction;
(2) storage in commercial dry storage casks, which could not be
procured and adapted quickly for use with Naval fuel; and (3) storage
in Navy or DOE water pools, which is precluded in the short-term by
space limitations and lack of the necessary storage racks.
Environmental Considerations
The impacts of the three alternatives have been evaluated both in
terms of their specific impacts and the cumulative impacts of shipyard
operation. Since the radioactivity in the spent fuel is totally
isolated from the environment in either the shipping containers, the
Surface Ship Support Barge, or in shutdown ships, short-term storage
under any of these alternatives would not result in any additional
release of radioactivity under normal conditions.
The Environmental Assessment considers several hypothetical
accidents involving Naval spent fuel including release of radioactivity
from the fuel during the accident. To summarize, all of the overall
accident risks are very small, less than one chance in 10,000 of a
single fatal cancer in the entire population. While the numerical
results of the calculations differ for the various storage modes and
locations, the overall risks are so small that accident risks provide
no realistic basis for selecting among the alternatives.
Proposed Determination
Based on the information and analysis in the Environmental
Assessment, the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program considers the No
Action alternative not to constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, within
the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, the
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program issues this Finding of No Significant
Impact and will make a final determination following a 30 day public
review period.
Dated: January 14, 1994.
B. DeMars,
Admiral, U.S. Navy, Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program.
Dated: January 20, 1994.
Michael P. Rummel,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 94-1914 Filed 1-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-AE-M
