[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-9906]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: April 25, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy

 

Finding of No Significant Impact--Short-Term Storage of Naval 
Spent Fuel; Final Determination

SUMMARY: The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program has prepared an 
Environmental Assessment of short-term storage of Naval spent nuclear 
fuel at shipyards. The preferred alternative is the ``No Action'' 
alternative. Under this alternative, Naval spent fuel removed from 
nuclear powered ships would be retained in specially designed 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 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 
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.
    Based on the analysis in the Environmental Assessment, the Naval 
Nuclear Propulsion Program concluded that the preferred alternative was 
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.) and issued a Finding of No 
Significant Impact. In accordance with the Council on Environmental 
Quality regulations which allow agencies to determine circumstances 
under which public review of Finding of No Significant Impact are 
appropriate, the Program made this Finding available for public comment 
for a period of 30 days.
    Sixty-eight comment letters were received. The comments contained 
in these letters and the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program responses are 
presented in a new Appendix 5 to the Environmental Assessment. The 
Appendix has been placed in libraries near the shipyards or mailed 
directly to commenters not located near a shipyard. A summary of the 
comments and the responses have been included at the end of this 
notice.

FINAL DETERMINATION: After reviewing and analyzing the comments 
received, the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program has concluded that the 
Finding of No Significant Impact remains valid and the proposed action 
is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of 
the human environment, within the meaning of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Therefore, the 
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program has determined that preparation of an 
Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

ADDRESSES AND FURTHER INFORMATION: Persons requesting copies of the 
Finding of No Significant Impact for short-term storage of Naval spent 
fuel or the Environmental Assessment should contact Ms. Lisa Megargle, 
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, Code NAVSEA O8U, 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.

    Dated: April 13, 1994.
B. DeMars,
Admiral, U.S. Navy, Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program.
    Dated: April 13, 1994.
Michael P. Rummel,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

Summary of Public Comments on the Environmental Assessment and Proposed 
Finding of No Significant Impact and Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program

    All of the comment letters and the responses to the comments are 
contained in Appendix 5 to the Environmental Assessment. The most 
frequent comments and the response to them are summarized below:
    Comment: The shipyards should not be considered for storage of 
Naval spent fuel due to proximity to population centers, or proximity 
to the ocean or bodies of water.
    Response: Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Naval 
Nuclear Propulsion Program is required to consider the full range of 
reasonable alternatives, including the alternative of taking no action. 
The analysis in the Environmental Assessment demonstrated that the 
environmental impact of any of the alternatives would be very small. 
This analysis took into consideration population data and nearby bodies 
of water. Therefore, the Program did not eliminate shipyard locations 
from consideration based on these characteristics.
    Comment: Other locations should be considered.
    Response: For short term storage, the shipyards provide both the 
physical requirements for storage such as a rail siding or a storage 
pad, as well as the administrative and support functions needed to 
safely store spent fuel. These administrative and support functions 
include physical security, radiological monitoring, and emergency 
response capability. It would not be practical to provide these 
administrative and support functions at other sites in the brief time 
frame in question. Thus, such alternatives were not ``reasonable'' 
within the meaning of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations 
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.
    Comment: The Program should conduct an Environmental Impact 
Statement of nationwide scope on spent fuel issues.
    Response: As discussed in the Environmental Assessment, the Navy is 
a cooperating agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 
in the DOE's comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement on spent 
nuclear fuel management, including Naval spent fuel.
    Comment: Temporary storage can last longer than planned. The 
Environmental Assessment should evaluate the impact if another 
alternative is not available in June 1995. The DOE Environmental Impact 
Statement and Record of Decision are unlikely to be completed by June 
1995. Litigation over the sufficiency of this Environmental Impact 
Statement could delay implementation. An alternative allowing removal 
from the shipyards might not be selected. Some of the alternatives to 
be evaluated in the DOE Environmental Impact Statement would require 
further site specific National Environmental Policy Act reviews, which 
would prevent prompt implementation.
    Response: As discussed in the Environmental Assessment, the Navy is 
cooperating with the DOE in a comprehensive Environmental Impact 
Statement on spent nuclear fuel management, including Naval spent fuel. 
This Environmental Impact Statement will evaluate alternatives for 
spent nuclear fuel management until a permanent repository is 
available. The Idaho Federal District Court Order, as modified by the 
Court acceptance of the agreement among the Navy, DOE, and Idaho, 
requires the DOE Environmental Impact Statement to be complete and a 
Record of Decision issued by June 1995. Some of the alternatives which 
are being evaluated in the DOE Environmental Impact Statement will 
allow routine Naval spent fuel shipments to be resumed promptly. 
Therefore, it is by no means certain that storage at shipyards will be 
extended. The environmental impact of all of the alternatives being 
considered in the DOE Environmental Impact Statement will include any 
transitional impacts. Thus, the scope of this Environmental Assessment 
properly is limited to evaluation of alternatives for short term 
storage while the DOE's Environmental Impact Statement is being 
prepared. It would be inappropriate for the Naval Nuclear Propulsion 
Program to speculate about the outcome of the DOE Environmental Impact 
Statement or what action the Federal Government might take.
    Comment: Department of Energy sites should be considered for short 
term storage.
    Response: Section 2.4 of the Environmental Assessment discussed why 
the Department of Energy sites could not be made available within the 
short term and thus are not ``reasonable'' alternatives. Several 
Department of Energy sites are being evaluated for long term storage of 
Naval spent fuel in the Department of Energy Environmental Impact 
Statement on spent nuclear fuel management.
    Comment: The Environmental Assessment does not adequately assess 
whether containers designed for shipping would be suitable for the 
different conditions of storage.
    Response: As described in the Environmental Assessment, the 
extremely rugged shipping containers were designed to withstand severe 
transportation accidents such as collisions, falls of bridges, fires, 
and immersion in water. Comparatively speaking, storage is much less 
taxing on the structural integrity of the containers. Nevertheless, the 
EA thoroughly evaluated the risks of potential accidents which could 
happen during storage. The shipping containers, in fact, are 
overdesigned for storage. Containers designed for transportation 
provide protection for severe accidents in excess of what could be 
reasonably expected to occur during storage.
    Comment: The Environmental Assessment should consider earthquakes.
    Response: The physical forces that an earthquake could subject a 
shipping container to are much less than those involved with the 
transportation accidents that the containers were designed to 
withstand. For example, one of the severe accidents which shipping 
containers are designed to withstand is a fall of 30 feet onto an 
unyielding surface (equivalent to a fall of 60 feet onto a reinforced 
concrete surface). Such a fall would subject a container to shock over 
100 times greater than that of a severe earthquake. In practical terms, 
steel structures far less strong than the massive shipping containers 
fare well in actual earthquakes. Therefore, there is no need to 
evaluate the potential for an earthquake to damage a shipping 
container.
    Comment: The Environmental Assessment underestimated the impacts of 
severe accidents.
    Response: The Environmental Assessment evaluated a range of 
hypothetical accidents which could occur during storage. The most 
severe accident evaluated in the Environmental Assessment was an 
aircraft crash with the potential for breach of the shipping 
containers. While extremely unlikely, this is the accident with the 
greatest potential to damage the shipping containers during storage. 
The accident analyses were based on realistic evaluation of what could 
happen to Naval spent fuel in shipping containers during the 
hypothetical accidents. Naval spent fuel is rugged, metallic, 
nondispersible material, and it would be unreasonable to conclude that 
any significant fraction of it could be released to the atmosphere by 
any of the accidents considered. Even if the shipping container were to 
be breached by a large part from an airplane (which is unlikely given 
the massive nature of the shipping containers), the Naval spent fuel 
would remain in or near the container. There is no mechanism for 
grinding up the fuel and injecting it into the air. The long term 
application of very high heat, such as might be generated by a confined 
fire with a gasoline truck, would be necessary to drive some fission 
products off from exposed Naval spent fuel. Such a fire is not credible 
in the shipyard environment. The shipyard fire department is readily 
available to extinguish any fire quickly. Thus, the accident analyses 
in the Environmental Assessment are conservative.

[FR Doc. 94-9906 Filed 4-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-AE-M