[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