APPENDIX D Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Part A
Department of Energy
Programmatic Spent Nuclear
Fuel Management
and
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management Programs
Environmental Impact Statement
Volume 1
Appendix D
Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel Management
April 1995
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Environmental Management
Idaho Operations Office
Appendix D
to Volume 1 of
Department of Energy
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management
and
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management Programs
Environmental Impact Statement
Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY S-1
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. BACKGROUND 2-1
2.1 Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program Overview 2-1
2.2 History and Mission of the Program 2-2
2.3 Regulatory Framework 2-5
2.4 Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel 2-6
2.4.1 Summary of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel Operations 2-6
2.4.2 Facilities Related to Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel 2-9
2.5 Planned Reductions in the Number of Nuclear-powered Naval
Vessels 2-10
2.6 References 2-12
3. ALTERNATIVES 3-1
3.1 No Action 3-2
3.2 Decentralization 3-4
3.2.1 Store Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel at or Close to Locations
Where Removed Without Examination 3-4
3.2.2 Examine a Limited Amount of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel
in the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Water Pit Facility
and Store All Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel at Navy
Facilities 3-5
3.2.3 Examine All Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel at the INEL
and Return to Naval Facilities for Storage 3-6
3.3 1992/1993 Planning Basis 3-7
3.4 Regionalization 3-7
3.4.1 Regionalization Using Storage at Three Sites (Hanford,
INEL, and Savannah River) 3-8
3.4.2 Regionalization Using Storage at Only Two Sites 3-8
3.5 Centralization 3-9
3.6 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 3-11
3.6.1 Use Other Combinations of Sites for Examination and
Storage of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel 3-11
3.6.2 Examine or Store Spent Nuclear Fuel from Naval Reactors
in Foreign Facilities 3-12
3.6.3 Do Not Remove Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel from Nuclear-
powered Ships 3-13
3.7 Comparison of Alternatives 3-16
3.7.1 Summary of Impacts 3-17
3.7.1.1 Human Health Impacts 3-17
3.7.1.2 Other Impacts 3-21
3.7.2 Impacts Due to Normal Operations 3-24
3.7.3 Impacts Due to Most Severe Accidents 3-26
3.7.4 Cumulative, Socioeconomic, and Cost Impacts 3-29
3.8 Transition Period 3-36
3.9 Preferred Alternative for Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel 3-37
3.10 References 3-40
4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.1.1-1
4.1 Navy and Prototype Sites for Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel 4.1.1-1
4.1.1 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard: Bremerton, Washington 4.1.1-1
4.1.1.1 Overview 4.1.1-1
4.1.1.2 Land Use 4.1.1-2
4.1.1.3 Socioeconomics 4.1.1-5
4.1.1.4 Cultural Resources 4.1.1-8
4.1.1.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 4.1.1-11
4.1.1.6 Geology 4.1.1-11
4.1.1.7 Air Resources 4.1.1-14
4.1.1.8 Water Resources 4.1.1-15
4.1.1.9 Ecological Resources 4.1.1-18
4.1.1.10 Noise 4.1.1-21
4.1.1.11 Traffic and Transportation 4.1.1-21
4.1.1.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 4.1.1-23
4.1.1.13 Utilities and Energy 4.1.1-27
4.1.1.14 Materials and Waste Management 4.1.1-28
4.1.2 Norfolk Naval Shipyard: Portsmouth, Virginia 4.1.2-1
4.1.2.1 Overview 4.1.2-1
4.1.2.2 Land Use 4.1.2-1
4.1.2.3 Socioeconomics 4.1.2-6
4.1.2.4 Cultural Resources 4.1.2-8
4.1.2.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 4.1.2-11
4.1.2.6 Geology 4.1.2-12
4.1.2.7 Air Resources 4.1.2-13
4.1.2.8 Water Resources 4.1.2-14
4.1.2.9 Ecological Resources 4.1.2-20
4.1.2.10 Noise 4.1.2-22
4.1.2.11 Traffic and Transportation 4.1.2-23
4.1.2.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 4.1.2-24
4.1.2.13 Utilities and Energy 4.1.2-29
4.1.2.14 Materials and Waste Management 4.1.2-30
4.1.3 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard: Kittery, Maine 4.1.3-1
4.1.3.1 Overview 4.1.3-1
4.1.3.2 Land Use 4.1.3-1
4.1.3.3 Socioeconomics 4.1.3-4
4.1.3.4 Cultural Resources 4.1.3-8
4.1.3.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 4.1.3-11
4.1.3.6 Geology 4.1.3-12
4.1.3.7 Air Resources 4.1.3-13
4.1.3.8 Water Resources 4.1.3-15
4.1.3.9 Ecological Resources 4.1.3-18
4.1.3.10 Noise 4.1.3-21
4.1.3.11 Traffic and Transportation 4.1.3-22
4.1.3.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 4.1.3-23
4.1.3.13 Utilities and Energy 4.1.3-27
4.1.3.14 Materials and Waste Management 4.1.3-27
4.1.4 Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard: Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 4.1.4-1
4.1.4.1 Overview 4.1.4-1
4.1.4.2 Land Use 4.1.4-1
4.1.4.3 Socioeconomics 4.1.4-5
4.1.4.4 Cultural Resources 4.1.4-10
4.1.4.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 4.1.4-10
4.1.4.6 Geology 4.1.4-11
4.1.4.7 Air Resources 4.1.4-13
4.1.4.8 Water Resources 4.1.4-15
4.1.4.9 Ecological Resources 4.1.4-17
4.1.4.10 Noise 4.1.4-19
4.1.4.11 Traffic and Transportation 4.1.4-19
4.1.4.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 4.1.4-20
4.1.4.13 Utilities and Energy 4.1.4-24
4.1.4.14 Materials and Waste Management 4.1.4-26
4.1.5 Kenneth A. Kesselring Site: West Milton, New York 4.1.5-1
4.1.5.1 Overview 4.1.5-1
4.1.5.2 Land Use 4.1.5-1
4.1.5.3 Socioeconomics 4.1.5-5
4.1.5.4 Cultural Resources 4.1.5-7
4.1.5.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 4.1.5-10
4.1.5.6 Geology 4.1.5-10
4.1.5.7 Air Resources 4.1.5-12
4.1.5.8 Water Resources 4.1.5-15
4.1.5.9 Ecological Resources 4.1.5-17
4.1.5.10 Noise 4.1.5-18
4.1.5.11 Traffic and Transportation 4.1.5-18
4.1.5.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 4.1.5-20
4.1.5.13 Utilities and Energy 4.1.5-25
4.1.5.14 Materials and Waste Management 4.1.5-26
4.2 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 4.2-1
4.2.1 Overview 4.2-1
4.2.2 Land Use 4.2-1
4.2.3 Socioeconomics 4.2-2
4.2.4 Cultural Resources 4.2-2
4.2.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 4.2-3
4.2.6 Geology 4.2-3
4.2.7 Air Resources 4.2-4
4.2.8 Water Resources 4.2-4
4.2.9 Ecological Resources 4.2-4
4.2.10 Noise 4.2-5
4.2.11 Traffic and Transportation 4.2-5
4.2.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 4.2-5
4.2.13 Utilities and Energy 4.2-8
4.2.14 Materials and Waste Management 4.2-8
4.3 Savannah River Site 4.3-1
4.3.1 Overview 4.3-1
4.3.2 Land Use 4.3-1
4.3.3 Socioeconomics 4.3-3
4.3.4 Cultural Resources 4.3-3
4.3.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 4.3-4
4.3.6 Geology 4.3-4
4.3.7 Air Resources 4.3-4
4.3.8 Water Resources 4.3-5
4.3.9 Ecological Resources 4.3-6
4.3.10 Noise 4.3-6
4.3.11 Traffic and Transportation 4.3-7
4.3.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 4.3-7
4.3.13 Utilities and Energy 4.3-7
4.3.14 Materials and Waste Management 4.3-7
4.4 Hanford Site 4.4-1
4.4.1 Overview 4.4-1
4.4.2 Land Use 4.4-1
4.4.3 Socioeconomics 4.4-3
4.4.4 Cultural Resources 4.4-3
4.4.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 4.4-4
4.4.6 Geology 4.4-4
4.4.7 Air Resources 4.4-5
4.4.8 Water Resources 4.4-5
4.4.9 Ecological Resources 4.4-6
4.4.10 Noise 4.4-6
4.4.11 Traffic and Transportation 4.4-7
4.4.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 4.4-7
4.4.13 Utilities and Energy 4.4-8
4.4.14 Materials and Waste Management 4.4-8
4.5 Oak Ridge Reservation 4.5-1
4.5.1 Overview 4.5-1
4.5.2 Land Use 4.5-1
4.5.3 Socioeconomics 4.5-3
4.5.4 Cultural Resources 4.5-3
4.5.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 4.5-4
4.5.6 Geology 4.5-4
4.5.7 Air Resources 4.5-4
4.5.8 Water Resources 4.5-5
4.5.9 Ecological Resources 4.5-5
4.5.10 Noise 4.5-6
4.5.11 Traffic and Transportation 4.5-6
4.5.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 4.5-6
4.5.13 Utilities and Energy 4.5-6
4.5.14 Materials and Waste Management 4.5-7
4.6 Nevada Test Site 4.6-1
4.6.1 Overview 4.6-1
4.6.2 Land Use 4.6-1
4.6.3 Socioeconomics 4.6-3
4.6.4 Cultural Resources 4.6-3
4.6.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 4.6-4
4.6.6 Geology 4.6-4
4.6.7 Air Resources 4.6-4
4.6.8 Water Resources 4.6-5
4.6.9 Ecological Resources 4.6-5
4.6.10 Noise 4.6-5
4.6.11 Traffic and Transportation 4.6-6
4.6.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 4.6-6
4.6.13 Utilities and Energy 4.6-6
4.6.14 Materials and Waste Management 4.6-6
4.7 References 4.7-1
5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 5.1.1-1
5.1 Navy and Prototype Sites for Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel 5.1.1-1
5.1.1 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard: Bremerton, Washington 5.1.1-1
5.1.1.1 Overview of Environmental Impacts 5.1.1-1
5.1.1.2 Land Use 5.1.1-1
5.1.1.3 Socioeconomics 5.1.1-2
5.1.1.4 Cultural Resources 5.1.1-4
5.1.1.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 5.1.1-4
5.1.1.6 Geology 5.1.1-5
5.1.1.7 Air Resources 5.1.1-5
5.1.1.8 Water Resources 5.1.1-7
5.1.1.9 Ecological Resources 5.1.1-8
5.1.1.10 Noise 5.1.1-9
5.1.1.11 Traffic and Transportation 5.1.1-9
5.1.1.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 5.1.1-10
5.1.1.13 Utilities and Energy 5.1.1-12
5.1.1.14 Facility and Transportation Accidents 5.1.1-13
5.1.1.15 Waste Management 5.1.1-17
5.1.1.16 Cumulative Impacts 5.1.1-17
5.1.1.17 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 5.1.1-21
5.1.1.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of
Resources 5.1.1-22
5.1.2 Norfolk Naval Shipyard: Portsmouth, Virginia 5.1.2-1
5.1.2.1 Overview of Environmental Impacts 5.1.2-1
5.1.2.2 Land Use 5.1.2-1
5.1.2.3 Socioeconomics 5.1.2-2
5.1.2.4 Cultural Resources 5.1.2-3
5.1.2.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 5.1.2-4
5.1.2.6 Geology 5.1.2-4
5.1.2.7 Air Resources 5.1.2-4
5.1.2.8 Water Resources 5.1.2-7
5.1.2.9 Ecological Resources 5.1.2-8
5.1.2.10 Noise 5.1.2-9
5.1.2.11 Traffic and Transportation 5.1.2-9
5.1.2.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 5.1.2-10
5.1.2.13 Utilities and Energy 5.1.2-12
5.1.2.14 Facility and Transportation Accidents 5.1.2-13
5.1.2.15 Waste Management 5.1.2-17
5.1.2.16 Cumulative Impacts 5.1.2-17
5.1.2.17 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 5.1.2-21
5.1.2.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of
Resources 5.1.2-22
5.1.3 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard: Kittery, Maine 5.1.3-1
5.1.3.1 Overview of Environmental Impacts 5.1.3-1
5.1.3.2 Land Use 5.1.3-1
5.1.3.3 Socioeconomics 5.1.3-2
5.1.3.4 Cultural Resources 5.1.3-3
5.1.3.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 5.1.3-4
5.1.3.6 Geology 5.1.3-4
5.1.3.7 Air Resources 5.1.3-4
5.1.3.8 Water Resources 5.1.3-7
5.1.3.9 Ecological Resources 5.1.3-7
5.1.3.10 Noise 5.1.3-8
5.1.3.11 Traffic and Transportation 5.1.3-8
5.1.3.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 5.1.3-10
5.1.3.13 Utilities and Energy 5.1.3-12
5.1.3.14 Facility and Transportation Accidents 5.1.3-12
5.1.3.15 Waste Management 5.1.3-16
5.1.3.16 Cumulative Impacts 5.1.3-17
5.1.3.17 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 5.1.3-21
5.1.3.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of
Resources 5.1.3-21
5.1.4 Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard: Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 5.1.4-1
5.1.4.1 Overview of Environmental Impacts 5.1.4-1
5.1.4.2 Land Use 5.1.4-1
5.1.4.3 Socioeconomics 5.1.4-2
5.1.4.4 Cultural Resources 5.1.4-3
5.1.4.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 5.1.4-4
5.1.4.6 Geology 5.1.4-4
5.1.4.7 Air Resources 5.1.4-4
5.1.4.8 Water Resources 5.1.4-7
5.1.4.9 Ecological Resources 5.1.4-8
5.1.4.10 Noise 5.1.4-9
5.1.4.11 Traffic and Transportation 5.1.4-9
5.1.4.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 5.1.4-10
5.1.4.13 Utilities and Energy 5.1.4-12
5.1.4.14 Facility and Transportation Accidents 5.1.4-13
5.1.4.15 Waste Management 5.1.4-17
5.1.4.16 Cumulative Impacts 5.1.4-17
5.1.4.17 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 5.1.4-21
5.1.4.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of
Resources 5.1.4-22
5.1.5 Kenneth A. Kesselring Site: West Milton, New York 5.1.5-1
5.1.5.1 Overview of Environmental Impacts 5.1.5-1
5.1.5.2 Land Use 5.1.5-1
5.1.5.3 Socioeconomics 5.1.5-1
5.1.5.4 Cultural Resources 5.1.5-3
5.1.5.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 5.1.5-3
5.1.5.6 Geology 5.1.5-4
5.1.5.7 Air Resources 5.1.5-4
5.1.5.8 Water Resources 5.1.5-6
5.1.5.9 Ecological Resources 5.1.5-7
5.1.5.10 Noise 5.1.5-8
5.1.5.11 Traffic and Transportation 5.1.5-8
5.1.5.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 5.1.5-9
5.1.5.13 Utilities and Energy 5.1.5-11
5.1.5.14 Facility and Transportation Accidents 5.1.5-12
5.1.5.15 Waste Management 5.1.5-16
5.1.5.16 Cumulative Impacts 5.1.5-16
5.1.5.17 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 5.1.5-20
5.1.5.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of
Resources 5.1.5-21
5.2 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 5.2-1
5.2.1 Overview of Environmental Impacts 5.2-1
5.2.2 Land Use 5.2-1
5.2.3 Socioeconomics 5.2-2
5.2.4 Cultural Resources 5.2-2
5.2.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 5.2-3
5.2.6 Geology 5.2-3
5.2.7 Air Resources 5.2-3
5.2.8 Water Resources 5.2-4
5.2.9 Ecological Resources 5.2-5
5.2.10 Noise 5.2-5
5.2.11 Traffic and Transportation 5.2-5
5.2.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 5.2-6
5.2.13 Utilities and Energy 5.2-9
5.2.14 Facility and Transportation Accidents 5.2-9
5.2.15 Waste Management 5.2-12
5.2.16 Cumulative Impacts 5.2-13
5.2.17 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 5.2-16
5.2.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 5.2-16
5.3 Savannah River Site 5.3-1
5.3.1 Overview of Environmental Impacts 5.3-1
5.3.2 Land Use 5.3-1
5.3.3 Socioeconomics 5.3-2
5.3.4 Cultural Resources 5.3-3
5.3.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 5.3-3
5.3.6 Geology 5.3-4
5.3.7 Air Resources 5.3-4
5.3.8 Water Resources 5.3-4
5.3.9 Ecological Resources 5.3-5
5.3.10 Noise 5.3-6
5.3.11 Traffic and Transportation 5.3-6
5.3.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 5.3-7
5.3.13 Utilities and Energy 5.3-10
5.3.14 Facility and Transportation Accidents 5.3-10
5.3.15 Waste Management 5.3-13
5.3.16 Cumulative Impacts 5.3-14
5.3.17 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 5.3-18
5.3.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 5.3-19
5.4 Hanford Site 5.4-1
5.4.1 Overview of Environmental Impacts 5.4-1
5.4.2 Land Use 5.4-1
5.4.3 Socioeconomics 5.4-2
5.4.4 Cultural Resources 5.4-3
5.4.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 5.4-3
5.4.6 Geology 5.4-4
5.4.7 Air Resources 5.4-4
5.4.8 Water Resources 5.4-5
5.4.9 Ecological Resources 5.4-6
5.4.10 Noise 5.4-7
5.4.11 Traffic and Transportation 5.4-8
5.4.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 5.4-8
5.4.13 Utilities and Energy 5.4-11
5.4.14 Facility and Transportation Accidents 5.4-11
5.4.15 Waste Management 5.4-15
5.4.16 Cumulative Impacts 5.4-15
5.4.17 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 5.4-18
5.4.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 5.4-19
5.5 Oak Ridge Reservation 5.5-1
5.5.1 Overview of Environmental Impacts 5.5-1
5.5.2 Land Use 5.5-1
5.5.3 Socioeconomics 5.5-1
5.5.4 Cultural Resources 5.5-3
5.5.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 5.5-3
5.5.6 Geology 5.5-3
5.5.7 Air Resources 5.5-3
5.5.8 Water Resources 5.5-4
5.5.9 Ecological Resources 5.5-5
5.5.10 Noise 5.5-6
5.5.11 Traffic and Transportation 5.5-6
5.5.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 5.5-6
5.5.13 Utilities and Energy 5.5-9
5.5.14 Facility and Transportation Accidents 5.5-9
5.5.15 Waste Management 5.5-13
5.5.16 Cumulative Impacts 5.5-13
5.5.17 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 5.5-17
5.5.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 5.5-18
5.6 Nevada Test Site 5.6-1
5.6.1 Overview of Environmental Impacts 5.6-1
5.6.2 Land Use 5.6-1
5.6.3 Socioeconomics 5.6-2
5.6.4 Cultural Resources 5.6-3
5.6.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources 5.6-3
5.6.6 Geology 5.6-3
5.6.7 Air Resources 5.6-4
5.6.8 Water Resources 5.6-4
5.6.9 Ecological Resources 5.6-5
5.6.10 Noise 5.6-6
5.6.11 Traffic and Transportation 5.6-6
5.6.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety 5.6-6
5.6.13 Utilities and Energy 5.6-9
5.6.14 Facility and Transportation Accidents 5.6-10
5.6.15 Waste Management 5.6-13
5.6.16 Cumulative Impacts 5.6-13
5.6.17 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 5.6-16
5.6.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 5.6-18
5.7 Relationship Between Short-term Use of the Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity 5.7-1
5.8 Potential Mitigation Measures 5.8-1
5.8.1 Pollution Prevention 5.8-1
5.8.1.1 Radiological Pollution Prevention Actions 5.8-1
5.8.1.2 Non-radiological Pollution Prevention Actions 5.8-2
5.8.1.3 Prevention of Mixed Wastes 5.8-4
5.8.2 Construction 5.8-4
5.8.3 Normal Operations 5.8-5
5.8.4 Accidents 5.8-6
5.9 References 5.9-1
Attachment A - Transportation of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel
Attachment B - Description of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel Receipt and Handling at the Expended
Core Facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Attachment C - Comparison of Storage in New Water Pools versus Dry Container Storage
Attachment D - Description of Storage of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel at Servicing Loca-
tions
(Shipyards and Prototypes)
Attachment E - Description of Receipt, Handling, and Examination of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel at
Alternate DOE Facilities
Attachment F - Analysis of Normal Operations and Accident Conditions
Attachment G - Comparison of the Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Environmental Assessment
and This Environmental Impact Statement
GLOSSARY GL-1
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AA-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title
Executive Summary
S-1 Risk from normal operations by alternative (fatal cancers
to the general population over 40 years from facility
operations and transportation) S-9
S-2 Summary of costs by alternative (facility and
transportation costs over 40 years) S-12
Section 2
2-1 Total Number of Nuclear-powered Ships in the United States
Navy 2-11
Section 4.1.1 - Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
4.1.1-1 Location of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard within Washington 4.1.1-3
4.1.1-2 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard vicinity map 4.1.1-3
4.1.1-3 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard site map 4.1.1-4
4.1.1-4 50-mile population distribution around Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard 4.1.1-7
4.1.1-5 Minority population distribution within 50 miles of the
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 4.1.1-9
4.1.1-6 Low-income population distribution within 50 miles of
the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 4.1.1-10
Section 4.1.2 - Norfolk Naval Shipyard
4.1.2-1 Location of Norfolk Naval Shipyard within Virginia 4.1.2-2
4.1.2-2 Norfolk Naval Shipyard vicinity map 4.1.2-2
4.1.2-3 Norfolk Naval Shipyard site map 4.1.2-3
4.1.2-4 Location of Newport News Shipbuilding within Virginia 4.1.2-4
4.1.2-5 Newport News Shipbuilding vicinity map 4.1.2-4
4.1.2-6 50-mile population distribution around Norfolk Naval
Shipyard 4.1.2-7
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont)
Figure No. Title
4.1.2-7 Minority population distribution within 50 miles of the
Norfolk Naval Shipyard 4.1.2-9
4.1.2-8 Low-income population distribution within 50 miles of
the Norfolk Naval Shipyard 4.1.2-10
Section 4.1.3 - Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
4.1.3-1 Location of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard within New
Hampshire and Maine 4.1.3-2
4.1.3-2 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard site map 4.1.3-3
4.1.3-3 50-mile population distribution around Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard 4.1.3-5
4.1.3-4 Minority population distribution within 50 miles of the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 4.1.3-9
4.1.3-5 Low-income population distribution within 50 miles of the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 4.1.3-10
Section 4.1.4 - Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard
4.1.4-1 Location of Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Hawaii 4.1.4-2
4.1.4-2 Pearl Harbor vicinity with average annual rainfall gradient 4.1.4-3
4.1.4-3 Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard site map 4.1.4-4
4.1.4-4 Population distribution within 50 miles of the Pearl Harbor
Naval Shipyard 4.1.4-6
4.1.4-5 Minority population distribution within 50 miles of the
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard 4.1.4-8
4.1.4-6 Low-income population distribution within 50 miles of the
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard 4.1.4-9
Section 4.1.5 - Kenneth A. Kesselring Site
4.1.5-1 Kesselring Site vicinity map 4.1.5-2
4.1.5-2 Kesselring Site location map 4.1.5-3
4.1.5-3 Kesselring Site map 4.1.5-4
4.1.5-4 50-mile population distribution around the Kesselring Site 4.1.5-6
4.1.5-5 Minority population distribution within 50 miles of the
Kesselring Site 4.1.5-8
4.1.5-6 Low-income population distribution within 50 miles of the
Kesselring Site 4.1.5-9
Section 4.3 - Savannah River Site
4.3-1 Candidate sites for an Expended Core Facility 4.3-2
Section 4.4 - Hanford Site
4.4-1 Hanford Site map 4.4-2
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont)
Figure No. Title
Section 4.5 - Oak Ridge Reservation
4.5-1 Oak Ridge Reservation site map 4.5-2
Section 4.6 - Nevada Test Site
4.6-1 Candidate site for an Expended Core Facility at the Nevada
Test Site 4.6-2
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title
Executive Summary
S-1 Summary of potential socioeconomic impacts S-11
Section 3 - Alternatives
3-1 Risk (fatal cancers to the general population per year)
by alternative 3-18
3-2 Fatal cancers per year to the general population from normal
operations 3-25
3-3 Most severe consequences (fatal cancers to the general
population) from an accident 3-27
3-4 Most severe risk to the general population from a facility
accident 3-28
3-5 Summary of cumulative impacts (fatal cancers to the general
population) 3-30
3-6 Likelihood of fatal cancer from cumulative radiation dose 3-31
3-7 Summary of potential socioeconomic impacts 3-33
3-8 Summary of cost impacts over 40 years 3-34
Section 4.1.1 - Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
4.1.1-1 Regional employment factors at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 4.1.1-6
Section 4.1.2 - Norfolk Naval Shipyard
4.1.2-1 Regional employment factors at Norfolk Naval Shipyard 4.1.2-8
4.1.2-2 Aquifers that underlie the Columbia aquifer 4.1.2-18
Section 4.1.3 - Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
4.1.3-1 Regional employment factors at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 4.1.3-7
LIST OF TABLES (Cont)
Table No. Title
Section 4.1.4 - Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard
4.1.4-1 Regional employment factors at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard 4.1.4-7
Section 4.1.5 - Kenneth A. Kesselring Site
4.1.5-1 Regional employment factors at the Kesselring Site 4.1.5-5
Section 5.1.1 - Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
5.1.1-1 Number of construction and operating jobs created at Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard for each alternative 5.1.1-3
Section 5.1.2 - Norfolk Naval Shipyard
5.1.2-1 Number of construction and operating jobs created at
Norfolk Naval Shipyard for each alternative 5.1.2-2
Section 5.1.3 - Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
5.1.3-1 Number of construction and operating jobs created at
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard for each alternative 5.1.3-2
Section 5.1.4 - Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard
5.1.4-1 Number of construction and operating jobs created at
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard for each alternative 5.1.4-2
Section 5.1.5 - Kenneth A. Kesselring Site
5.1.5-1 Number of construction and operating jobs created at
the Kesselring Site for each alternative 5.1.5-2
Section 5.2 - Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
5.2-1 Summary of direct jobs (closure of INEL-ECF) 5.2-2
5.2-2 Summary of direct jobs (operation of INEL-ECF) 5.2-2
Section 5.3 - Savannah River Site
5.3-1 Summary of direct jobs due to the Savannah River ECF 5.3-2
LIST OF TABLES (Cont)
Table No. Title
Section 5.4 - Hanford Site
5.4-1 Summary of direct jobs due to the Hanford ECF 5.4-2
Section 5.5 - Oak Ridge Reservation
5.5-1 Summary of direct jobs due to Oak Ridge ECF construction and
operation 5.5-2
Section 5.6 - Nevada Test Site
5.6-1 Summary of direct jobs due to the Nevada ECF 5.6-2
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Volume 1 to the Department of Energy's Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Management Programs Environmental Impact
Statement evaluates a range of alternatives for managing naval spent nuclear fuel expected to be
removed from U.S. Navy nuclear-powered vessels and prototype reactors through the year 2035. The
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) considers a range of alternatives for examining and storing
naval spent nuclear fuel, including alternatives that terminate examination and involve storage close to
the refueling or defueling site. The EIS covers the potential environmental impacts of each
alternative, as well as cost impacts and impacts to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program mission.
This Appendix covers aspects of the alternatives that involve managing naval spent nuclear
fuel at four naval shipyards and the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program Kesselring Site in West
Milton, New York. This Appendix also covers the impacts of alternatives that involve examining
naval spent nuclear fuel at the Expended Core Facility in Idaho and the potential impacts of
constructing and operating an inspection facility at any of the Department of Energy (DOE) facilities
considered in the EIS. This Appendix also considers the impacts of the alternative involving limited
spent nuclear fuel examinations at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. This Appendix does not address the
impacts associated with storing naval spent nuclear fuel after it has been inspected and transferred to
DOE facilities. These impacts are addressed in separate appendices for each DOE site.
BACKGROUND
The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program is a joint U.S. Navy and DOE program responsible
for all matters pertaining to naval nuclear propulsion. The Program is responsible for the nuclear
propulsion plants aboard over 120 nuclear-powered warships powered by over 140 naval reactors and
for nuclear propulsion work performed at six naval shipyards and two private shipyards. Removal of
spent nuclear fuel from ships is ending at two of those shipyards as a result of recent decisions on
base closures, and nuclear propulsion work at one of the private shipyards has not involved handling
spent nuclear fuel for more than 15 years. The Program is also responsible for two government-
owned, contractor-operated laboratories, two moored training ships, three land-based prototype
reactors, and the Expended Core Facility located at the Naval Reactors Facility. The Naval Reactors
Facility is located at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL).
NAVAL SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MANAGEMENT
Naval spent nuclear fuel is the fuel removed from naval nuclear propulsion plants. Naval fuel
is designed to meet the demanding requirements needed to support long-term operation in a warship.
To meet these requirements, it is designed to withstand battle shock and to retain its radioactivity so
as to minimize radiation dose to the ships' operating personnel who must live and work in close
proximity to the reactor. Even after decades of service, the spent nuclear fuel retains its strength and
high integrity.
For nearly 40 years, naval spent nuclear fuel has been shipped by rail in shielded shipping
containers from naval shipyards and prototypes to the Expended Core Facility in Idaho where it is
removed from the shipping containers and placed into water pools at the Expended Core Facility. All
fuel is examined for specific characteristics and for abnormalities. Selected fuel is given more
detailed examination. Naval fuel examinations provide assurance that operations of shipboard reactors
can continue without restriction. These examinations have significantly contributed to the longer core
lives and continued safe performance of current naval reactor designs. This work has also resulted in
substantial reduction in the amount of spent nuclear fuel generated by the Naval Nuclear Propulsion
Program.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The EIS considers five general alternatives for spent nuclear fuel management. The general
alternatives are described in Chapter 3 of Volume 1. Naval spent nuclear fuel would be managed
under each of these general alternatives as follows.
No Action
Naval reactors would be refueled and defueled as planned. Naval spent nuclear fuel would be
stored in transport casks at the Navy or DOE facility where defueling was conducted. (Fuel
generated from ships at Newport News Shipbuilding would be transferred to Norfolk Naval
Shipyard.) No further spent nuclear fuel examination would be conducted. This alternative would
require a phase-in period while additional containers are procured for spent nuclear fuel storage.
During an approximately 3-year period, spent nuclear fuel would be transported in shipping
containers to the Expended Core Facility in Idaho. The containers would be unloaded and used to
support additional refuelings and defuelings.
Decentralization
For naval spent nuclear fuel, three options are considered. Each option would require a
phase-in period while facilities are developed. The length of the phase-in period would depend on the
option and mode of storage selected. During the phase-in period, spent nuclear fuel would be
transported in shipping containers to the Expended Core Facility in Idaho. The containers would be
unloaded and used to support additional refuelings and defuelings.
a. Store naval spent nuclear fuel at the Navy or DOE facility where defueling is conducted.
(Fuel generated from ships at Newport News Shipbuilding would be transferred to Norfolk Naval
Shipyard.) At each storage location, dry storage in shipping containers and dry casks as well as wet
storage in a water pool facility are considered.
b. Modify the existing water pool facility at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to conduct the
maximum practical amount of naval spent nuclear fuel examinations at that site. Store naval spent
nuclear fuel at the Navy or DOE facility where defueling is conducted. (Fuel generated from ships at
Newport News Shipbuilding would be transferred to Norfolk Naval Shipyard.) At each storage
location, dry storage in shipping containers and dry casks as well as wet storage in a water pool
facility are considered.
c. Ship naval spent nuclear fuel to the Expended Core Facility for examination, then return
the fuel after examination to the Navy or DOE facility where defueling is conducted. (Fuel generated
from ships at Newport News Shipbuilding would be transferred to Norfolk Naval Shipyard.) At each
storage location, dry storage in shipping containers and dry casks as well as wet storage in a water
pool facility are considered.
1992/1993 Planning Basis
The historic practice of transporting all spent nuclear fuel removed from naval reactors to the
Expended Core Facility in Idaho for examination would resume. Following examination, fuel would
be transferred to DOE for management at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant pending final
disposition.
Regionalization
The overall Regionalization alternative includes two options. The first option involves
managing spent nuclear fuel at three DOE sites (Hanford Site, the INEL, and the Savannah River
Site) based on fuel type. Under this option, the historical practice of transporting spent nuclear fuel
removed from naval reactors to the Expended Core Facility in Idaho for examination would resume.
Following examination, fuel would be transferred to DOE for management at the Idaho Chemical
Processing Plant pending final disposition.
The second overall option involves managing spent nuclear fuel at a Western Regional Site
and an Eastern Regional Site, based primarily on the originating location of the fuel. Under this
option, naval fuel would be allocated to one site, either the western or the eastern site, for
examination and storage. This Appendix evaluates the potential impacts of examining naval spent
nuclear fuel at all of the potential sites.
Centralization
The Centralization alternative would collect all of the DOE's current and future spent nuclear
fuel at one DOE site. The Hanford Site, the INEL, the Nevada Test Site, the Oak Ridge Reservation,
and the Savannah River Site have been considered as candidates for this single site. If the INEL were
selected, then naval spent nuclear fuel would be examined at the Expended Core Facility and would
be stored at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant. If a site other than INEL were selected, then the
Expended Core Facility would be shut down and a new or modified facility for examination and
additional storage facilities would be constructed at the selected site.
SITES CONSIDERED FOR NAVAL SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MANAGEMENT
Naval Shipyards and Prototypes - The EIS evaluates four naval shipyards, Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard at Bremerton, Washington; Norfolk Naval Shipyard at Portsmouth, Virginia; Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard at Kittery, Maine; and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for
management of naval spent nuclear fuel only. The EIS also evaluates the Kenneth A. Kesselring
Prototype Site at West Milton, New York. The four shipyard locations are industrial in nature and
located near harbor areas. The Kesselring Site is a 3900-acre facility located in the mid-eastern sector
of New York State in a wooded rural environment.
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory - This is the location of the Naval Reactors Facility
which is also the present location of the Expended Core Facility. It is located in southeastern Idaho
and occupies about 890 square miles of desert. The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory is
presently used for industrial and support operations associated with energy research and waste
management activities, grazing, recreational uses, and environmental research. It is remote from
urban areas and occupies a controlled federal reservation which is largely undisturbed from its natural
state.
Savannah River Site - The Savannah River Site in South Carolina is the location of one of the
Department of Energy's weapons production sites. The P, K, and L Reactors at this location
produced plutonium and tritium in support of the nation's nuclear weapons program. The Savannah
River Site is located in the eastern United States and is in a heavily wooded environment which is
returning to a more natural state from its previous agricultural uses. It is 310 square miles in area.
Hanford Site - The Hanford Site in the State of Washington is the location of one of the
Department of Energy's weapons production sites. The N-Reactor at this site was used by the DOE
through the years for the production of plutonium in support of the nation's nuclear weapons
program. The Hanford Site is in the western United States on open, vacant desert land. It is 560
square miles in area which is largely undisturbed from its original state.
Oak Ridge Reservation - The Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee is the location of one of
the Department of Energy's facilities which was primarily used to support the nation's nuclear
weapons program. The Y-12 Plant at this location was used for processing highly enriched uranium
for fuel elements used in the Savannah River reactors. The Oak Ridge Reservation is located in the
eastern United States and is in a heavily wooded environment. It is 55 square miles in area, and
consists of three industrialized areas separated by undeveloped forest land.
Nevada Test Site - The Nevada Test Site in Nevada has been a location for performing
nuclear weapons testing. This site has been used by the DOE for activities in support of the national
nuclear weapons program. The Nevada Test Site is in the western United States and is located in
open, vacant desert land. It is 1350 square miles in area.
ANALYSES
This EIS evaluates the potential environmental impact of each alternative, including both the
construction of new facilities and management operations at those facilities (transport, receipt,
handling, examination, and storage of naval spent nuclear fuel). In general, accident analyses focus
on accidents which have the probability to occur at least once every 10 million years. The range of
accidents considered includes those resulting from human errors or mechanical failure such as airplane
crashes into storage facilities and improper spent nuclear fuel handling, as well as natural disasters
such as earthquakes and tornadoes. Both radiological and non-radiological impacts were considered.
The cumulative impacts of spent nuclear fuel management and other operations at these facilities have
also been evaluated.
RESULTS AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Implementation of some of the alternatives would require construction or modification of
facilities for storage of naval spent nuclear fuel at naval sites or a replacement for the Expended Core
Facility at a DOE site. The locations for any new facilities would be selected from space already
available on existing federally owned property, so no additional land would be withdrawn from public
use at any site. The only exception to this might occur if the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant at
Savannah River were to be purchased and removed from the public domain. New facility locations
would be chosen to avoid impacts on the cultural, archaeological, aesthetic, or scenic values of the
area and to ensure that the rights or interests of Native American or Native Hawaiian groups would
not be infringed. No site listed in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected.
Ecologically sensitive areas, such as those in the vicinity of any threatened or endangered species,
would be avoided. Construction activities associated with any naval spent nuclear fuel storage or
examination facility would comply with all applicable laws and regulations, using established
procedures for preserving air and water quality and previously unknown archaeological or cultural
artifacts encountered and for minimizing such impacts as noise and disturbance or destruction of
habitat.
No new naval spent nuclear fuel storage or examination facility would release water carrying
radioactive or hazardous material to the environment. In 40 years of receipt, transportation,
handling, and examination of naval spent nuclear fuel, the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program has
never had a release of radioactivity that has had a significant effect on the environment. Based on the
operations that would be performed and the controls that would be in place, the impacts on air, water,
ecological, or geological resources of any naval facility considered would be negligible.
Furthermore, experience has shown that since naval spent nuclear fuel management is a low-intensity
industrial activity, its contributions to noise and traffic would be inconsequential and its utility needs
would generally be within the capabilities of the candidate sites. The Hanford Site and Nevada Test
Site are possible exceptions to this because they are already operating at or near their electrical utility
capacities and may require additional capacity to accommodate a new Expended Core Facility.
In the unlikely event of any accident involving naval spent nuclear fuel, it is estimated that no
more than 210 acres of land would be affected for the most severe case, and in the other accidents
analyzed, smaller areas of land would be affected. The affected area would require decon-
tamination
and during this cleanup, access controls would have to be established. However, due to the limited
land area affected, it is judged that these restrictions would only be temporary and the impact on
issues such as economics, treaty rights, tribal resources, ecology, and land use would be small and
limited in time. The remediation actions would be simpler in rural areas than in urban areas, but,
provided that prudent controls and remediation operations were promptly implemented, the affected
land and buildings could be recovered in either case. As demonstrated in the accident analyses in this
appendix, the human health effects would not be large and the effects on wildlife and other biota
would also not be large, partly due to the relatively small area affected and partly because of the
limited effects of the accident.
The radiological and non-radiological impacts of all the alternatives considered would be
small. After consideration of the full range of environmental impacts and other effects associated
with the management of naval spent nuclear fuel, it is judged that for all of the alternatives
considered, the impacts on the ecology, cultural and aesthetic values, air and water resources,
geology, and such areas as noise, traffic, and utilities, normally associated with most daily activities,
would be so small and differ so little among alternatives for naval spent nuclear fuel that they would
be of little assistance in differentiating among the alterna-
tives.
The areas of impact which are of special interest to the public or which provide the most
distinct contrasts among the alternatives are public health, socioeconomics, cost, and the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program mission.
Public Health Impacts
A primary concern for most people is the risk to the public from exposure to radiation or
radioactive material for each of the alternatives. The exposure could be a result of normal operations
or an accident. A practical method often used to characterize the public risk resulting from federal
actions such as these is to estimate the number of prompt fatalities or cancer fatalities that might
result.
The analyses in this EIS show that there would be no prompt fatalities from the radiation
exposure associated with accidents (or normal operations) for any of the alternatives considered and
that there would be no latent cancer fatalities under any of the alternatives. However, for the No
Action and Decentralization alternatives, under which naval spent nuclear fuel would be stored at a
naval shipyard, the risks to a member of the public would be higher than for other alternatives.
Figure S-1 provides an overall comparison of the alternatives in terms of the calculated
increase in the number of cancer fatalities that might occur in the general population over 40 years of
operation for each alternative. It is important to emphasize that these cancer fatalities are calculated
results rather than actual expected fatalities. This is because the expected number of such fatalities
during normal operations is so small as to be indistinguishable relative to the larger number of such
deaths expected from naturally occurring conditions and other man-made effects not related to naval
spent nuclear fuel operations. This is not meant to trivialize the importance of radiation-induced
cancer fatalities but, rather, is meant to put the issue in perspective. In all the alternatives, thousands
of years of facility operation and transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel would be required before a
single additional fatal cancer might be expected to occur. To provide some perspective, the naturally
occurring radioactive materials in fertilizer used to produce food crops contribute about 1 to 2
millirem per year to an average American's exposure to radiation. Using the same calculational
method used to determine the cancer fatality risk for the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program
Figure S-1. Risk from normal operations by alternative (fatal cancers to the general population over 40 years from facility operations and transportation).
alternatives, the exposures from consuming food grown with fertilizer result in 125 to 250 cancer
fatalities annually in the United States.
The most severe risks for a facility accident were determined to be from an airplane crash
into a dry storage container at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. This accident was calculated to
result in 26 cancer fatalities and had a probability of occurring about once every 100,000 years. This
accident has been calculated to produce a risk of less than 0.0003 additional cancer fatalities per year.
The risks from all other accidents associated with examination or storage of naval spent nuclear fuel
were much less than this. In general, the risks from facility accidents tended to be worse for the No
Action and Decentralization alternatives, because for these alternatives fuel would be stored at sites
which are located close to large population centers. For transportation accidents, the potential risks
varied with the distances to be traveled, being least for the No Action and the Decentralization - No
Examination alternatives which would involve transportation over short distances to storage locations
near where the fuel is removed from reactors.
Socioeconomic and Cost Impacts
The socioeconomic impacts of implementing each of the alternatives would differ somewhat
and are summarized in Table S-1. The primary socioeconomic impact of the alternatives considered
would be on employment. Nation-wide employment levels would not vary significantly among
alternatives for managing naval spent nuclear fuel and therefore do not provide a basis to distinguish
among the alternatives. The maximum impact on local employment levels would be caused by
alternatives requiring development of new naval spent nuclear fuel examination capability at a DOE
facility other than INEL while terminating these activities at INEL. Continuing current practices of
transporting naval spent nuclear fuel to the Expended Core Facility at INEL for examination followed
by transfer to the DOE for storage would result in the minimum disruption of employment levels.
As shown in Figure S-2, there are large differences in the costs associated with all
alternatives. These costs include the costs that would be incurred from construction of new facilities
and containers, naval spent nuclear fuel transportation, and facility operation. In general, lower costs
are associated with those alternatives that support examination of naval spent nuclear fuel with
existing facilities and those alternatives that terminate or severely curtail spent nuclear fuel
examination. The higher costs are associated with those alternatives that require construction of a
new Expended Core Facility and those alternatives that use shipping containers for storage.
Table S-1. Summary of potential socioeconomic impacts.
Long-term Impacts Long-term Impacts
Alternative at INEL at Other Sites
1. No Action Lose 500 jobs Add 50-100 jobs at
naval sites
2. Decentralization
- No Examination Lose 500 jobs Add 50-200 jobs at
naval sites
- Limited Examination Lose 500 jobs Add 110-260 jobs at
naval sites
- Full Examination No change Add 50-200 jobs at
naval sites
3. 1992/1993 Planning Basis No change No change
4/5. Regionalization or Centralization
- Idaho National Engineering No change No change
Laboratory
- Hanford Site Lose 500 jobs Add 500 permanent jobs
and some construction
jobs at Hanford
- Savannah River Site Lose 500 jobs Add 500 permanent jobs
and some construction
jobs at Savannah River
- Nevada Test Site Lose 500 jobs Add 500 permanent jobs
and some construction
jobs at NTS
- Oak Ridge Reservation Lose 500 jobs Add 500 permanent jobs
and some construction
jobs at ORR
Figure S-2. Summary of costs by alternative (facility and transportation costs over 40 years). Mission Impacts
Two important components of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program operations are the safe
management of naval spent nuclear fuel and support of the Navy's fleet of nuclear-powered warships.
Based on the analyses in this EIS, all alternatives considered would allow safe storage of naval spent
nuclear fuel until a permanent repository becomes available. However, some of the alternatives
would not provide equal levels of Fleet support. Alternatives which limit or terminate naval spent
nuclear fuel examination would severely impact ongoing research and development work. Naval
spent nuclear fuel examination results are used to confirm the adequacy of design features, explore
material performance, and confirm or adjust computer predictions of fuel performance. This
information contributes to the design and manufacturing of new naval reactor cores as well as the safe
operation of nuclear-powered warships. Of the alternatives allowing full examination at the INEL,
Hanford Site, Savannah River Site, Oak Ridge Reservation, or Nevada Test Site, examination at the
INEL would have the smallest mission impact due to the presence of existing facilities and equipment
for performing this work, and the presence of a highly skilled work force, all of which would need to
be relocated or reassembled if a new examination site were selected.
CONCLUSION - PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Navy's preferred alternative for the management of naval spent nuclear fuel would
continue the historic, technically sound and safe practice of conducting refueling and defueling of
nuclear-powered warships and prototypes as planned, transporting naval spent nuclear fuel to the
Expended Core Facility at INEL for full inspection and examination, and transferring naval spent
nuclear fuel to the DOE facility for storage pending availability of a method for permanent
disposition. This preferred alternative is based on consideration of environmental, socioeconomic,
cost, and mission impacts of each alternative.
The analyses contained in this EIS demonstrate that the environmental impacts of
implementing any of the alternatives would be very small for normal operations and accident
conditions. The analysis results do not provide a basis to distinguish among the alternatives in most
of these areas. The socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives also do not provide a basis to
distinguish among the alternatives.
The Navy's preferred alternative is, therefore, based on impacts to the Navy's mission and on
cost. Alternatives that limit or terminate naval spent nuclear fuel examination would adversely affect
Fleet support and the development of new naval reactors. Primarily because of the existing
infrastructure, examination followed by storage at INEL would best support the Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Program mission and would be the least cost alternative allowing for full examination of
naval spent nuclear fuel.
The alternatives which involve the Navy's preferred alternative are: 1992/1993 Planning
Basis alternative and the Regionalization and Centralization alternatives that include the use of the
Expended Core Facility at INEL.
1. INTRODUCTION
This appendix describes the alternatives which have been evaluated for the examination and
storage of spent nuclear fuel from U. S. naval nuclear shipboard and prototype reactors. The spent
fuel is removed during reactor refuelings and defuelings at naval and commercial shipyards and at the
prototype sites. The alternatives include a range of options for managing naval spent fuel through the
year 2035. The options for spent fuel examination include ceasing all examinations, examining a
limited amount of fuel at a naval shipyard, and performing a full range of examinations at the current
facility (Idaho National Engineering Laboratory) or at another Department of Energy (DOE) facility.
The options for naval spent fuel storage include storage at the refueling and defueling sites (in some
cases, it is necessary to move the fuel to the closest acceptable Navy shipyard), storage at the current
facility, or storage at another DOE facility. Spent fuel transportation aspects will depend on the
examination and storage alternatives selected.
Naval spent fuel examination, whether at a naval or DOE site, will remain the responsibility
of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. This appendix therefore addresses the environmental
impacts of naval spent fuel examination. This appendix also addresses the environmental impacts of
long-term storage of spent fuel at naval shipyards and prototype sites. The environmental impacts of
long-term spent fuel storage at DOE facilities are addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement
appendices applicable to those sites.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 NAVAL NUCLEAR PROPULSION PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program is a joint Navy/Department of Energy (DOE)
organization responsible for all matters pertaining to naval nuclear propulsion pursuant to Presidential
Executive Order 12344, enacted as permanent law by Public Law 98-525 (42 USC 7158). The
Program is responsible for:
a. The nuclear propulsion plants aboard over 120 warships powered by over 140 naval
reactors.
b. Moored Training Ships located in Charleston, South Carolina used for naval nuclear
propulsion plant operator training.
c. Nuclear propulsion work performed at eight shipyards (six public and two private).
d. Two DOE government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories devoted solely to naval
nuclear propulsion research, development, and design work.
e. Three land-based prototype naval reactors used for research and development work and
training of naval nuclear propulsion plant operators.
f. The Expended Core Facility, located at the Naval Reactors Facility which is a part of the
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
More detailed discussion is available in the references listed in Section 2.6 (DOE/DOD 1994;
Duncan 1990; Hewlett and Duncan 1974).
2.2 HISTORY AND MISSION OF THE PROGRAM
In 1946, at the conclusion of World War II, Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act, which
established the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to succeed the wartime Manhattan Project, and
gave it the sole responsibility for developing atomic energy. At that time, Captain Hyman G.
Rickover was assigned to the Navy Bureau of Ships, the organization responsible for naval ship
design. Captain Rickover recognized the military implications of successfully harnessing atomic
power for submarine propulsion, and that it would be necessary for the Navy to work with the AEC
to develop such a program. By 1949, Captain Rickover had forged an arrangement between the AEC
and the Navy that led to the formation of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. In 1954, the
nuclear submarine USS NAUTILUS put to sea and demonstrated the basis for all subsequent U.S.
nuclear-powered warship propulsion designs. In the 1970's, government restructuring moved the
AEC part of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program from the AEC (which was disestablished) to what
became the Department of Energy. Although the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program grew in size and
scope over the years, it retained its dual responsibilities within the Department of Energy and the
Department of the Navy, and its basic organization, responsibilities, and technical discipline have
remained much as when it was first established.
By eliminating altogether the need for oxygen for propulsion, nuclear power offered a way to
drive a submerged submarine without the need to resurface frequently. In addition, nuclear power
offered a way to drive a submerged submarine at high speed without concern for fuel consumption.
Nuclear propulsion, though originally developed for submarines, significantly enhances the
military capability of surface ships. Nuclear propulsion provides virtually unlimited high-speed
endurance without dependence on tankers and their escorts. Moreover, the space normally required
for propulsion fuel in oil-fired ships can be used for weapons and aircraft fuel in nuclear-powered
ships.
Naval fuel is designed to meet the very stringent operational requirements for naval nuclear
propulsion reactors. Because of its military design, it will maintain its integrity indefinitely under the
far less demanding conditions encountered during land-based storage. Naval fuel is designed to
operate in a high-temperature and high-pressure environment for many years. Current designs are
capable of over 20 years of successful operation. Measurements of the corrosion rates for current
naval fuel designs have shown that naval spent nuclear fuel could be safely stored for periods far, far
longer than the 40 years considered in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in the cool water or
air used for storage. Naval fuel uses highly corrosion-resistant materials for fuel and cladding which
can withstand high-intensity radiation and harsh environments. As a result, the fuel is very strong
and has very high integrity. The fuel is designed, built, and tested to ensure that the fuel construction
will contain and hold the radioactive fission products. Naval fuel totally contains fission products
within the fuel - there is no fission product release from the fuel in normal operation. Since the
nuclear reactor core contains a large quantity of fission products, it is essential to contain them within
the nuclear fuel in order to minimize radiation exposure to a ship's crew. Naval fuel is extremely
rugged. It can withstand combat shock loads which are well in excess of 10 times the seismic loads
for which commercial nuclear power plant fuel is designed. It routinely operates with rapid changes
in power level since naval ships must be able to change speed quickly in operational situations. Naval
fuel consists of solid components which are non-explosive, non-flammable, and non-corrosive. The
ruggedness of naval fuel is demonstrated by the fact that two nuclear-powered ships were lost at sea
in the 1960's, and subsequent environmental monitoring shows no release of fission products from the
fuel despite the catastrophic nature of the loss of the ships (NNPP 1994a). Also, naval spent nuclear
fuel examined after 28 years of storage in a water pool exhibited no detectable deterioration.
Although spent nuclear fuel is highly radioactive, it is not regarded as "waste"; it requires special
handling procedures, shielding, and other measures to isolate it from people and the environment.
The integrity of naval nuclear fuel is due in part to a long-standing program of examination of
spent fuel after it has been removed from prototype reactor plants and operating ships. These
examinations have been conducted at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) since the
beginning of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. Construction and early operation of the original
INEL Expended Core Facility (ECF) occurred between 1957 and 1962. The original building
contained a water pool and nine shielded cells connected to the water pool by a transfer tunnel. As
examination requirements changed, the ECF underwent several expansion programs.
The first and second expansions, in 1962 and 1963, were prompted by the initiation of
irradiated test specimen examinations at ECF. In the 1970's, the third expansion occurred with the
addition of new, larger hot cells. The fourth expansion (1979-1987) included the extension of the
ECF building and water pools for the addition of the Breeding Nondestructive Assay Facility. This
addition was for the receipt and examination of the Light Water Breeder Reactor nuclear fuel
following its operation in the former PWR Shippingport Atomic Power Station. The work at ECF
has continued at or near capacity, receiving, handling, and examining spent fuel from naval reactor
plants.
The examinations of naval spent nuclear fuel are essential to meeting the goals of the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program. The primary goals that are supported by examinations are:
- Continued safety of naval reactors
- The design of new reactors having extended lifetimes
- Improvements in nuclear fuel performance
- Demonstration of satisfactory operation of existing naval reactors by providing
confirmation of their proper design and allowing maximum depletion of their fuel
- Validation of design models for new core types.
The goal of the extended lifetime reactor design is to have the reactor core last for the life of
the ship. Such a design would eliminate the need to refuel the reactor during its useful lifetime. It
would also reduce the cost of fueling the ship, and would increase the time that such a ship would be
in active service rather than being refueled.
This EIS assumes that the extended-lifetime goal is partially achieved. Based on current
technology, the EIS assumes that each of the three SEAWOLF submarines will need to be refueled
once during the period to the year 2035. Based on anticipated developments supported by new data
from the examinations of naval spent nuclear fuel, this EIS also assumes that each of the New Attack
Submarine Class will not need to be refueled during the period to 2035.
If the examinations of naval spent nuclear fuel are terminated and the goal of a life-of-the-ship
core is not achieved, more naval spent nuclear fuel will be created than is otherwise anticipated. The
number of shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel during the period from 1995 to 2035 would increase
from about 580 to about 630 and the corresponding amount of naval spent nuclear fuel would increase
from 65 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) to about 70 metric tons of heavy metal.
Similarly, the goals for safety, improved fuel performance, and satisfactory operation of naval
reactors will depend on continuing the examinations of naval spent nuclear fuel.
2.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program includes activities conducted by both the U.S. Navy
and the Department of Energy. Executive Order 12344, enacted as permanent law by Public Law
98-525, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 establish the responsibility and authority of the Director
of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (who is also the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Naval
Reactors within the Department of Energy) for all facilities and activities that comprise the Program.
These executive and legislative actions establish that the Director is responsible for all matters
pertaining to naval nuclear propulsion, including direction and oversight of environmental, safety, and
health matters for all program facilities and activities.
The federal permits, licenses, and other entitlements listed below may need to be obtained to
implement the alternative selected. Existing federal permits, licenses, and entitlements will be
modified as required. Applicable state and local permits, licenses, and entitlements will be obtained
or modified, as necessary.
- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit as required by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), 33 U.S.C. - 1251 et seq.
- NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Sites as required
by the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. - 1251 et seq.
- Permit to emit hazardous air pollutants (radionuclides) under the Clean Air Act (CAA),
42 U.S.C. - 7401 et seq., as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
- Department of Energy Certificate of Compliance for Radioactive Materials Packages in
accordance with the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 42 U.S.C. - 2011 et. seq.
2.4 NAVAL SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL
2.4.1 Summary of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel Operations
For approximately 40 years, naval spent nuclear fuel has been shipped by rail to the Naval
Reactors Facility at the INEL, where it is removed from the shielded shipping containers and placed
into the water pools at the ECF. All spent fuel received at the ECF is visually examined externally
for evidence of any unusual condition such as unexpected corrosion, unexpected wear, or structural
defects. After the fuel assembly structural components have been removed, the interior of the
assembly is examined for the conditions discussed above. In addition, the assembly is examined for
distortions from irradiation, heat, or the fission process which could interfere with the even
distribution of primary coolant and consequent heat removal. The inspection also checks for possible
flow obstructions due to foreign material or excessive corrosion product buildup. About 10 to 20
percent of the spent naval reactor cores are given more detailed examinations for such purposes as
confirming the adequacy of new design features, exploring materials performance concerns, and
obtaining detailed information to confirm or adjust computer predictions of neutron physics, heat
transfer, or hydraulic flow and distortion. These detailed examinations may include metallography to
determine corrosion film thicknesses, dimensional measurements to determine fuel assembly
distortion, and radiochemical analysis to determine core depletions, as well as other inspections. As
discussed below, the examination program is essential in supporting the Navy's continued safe
operation of naval reactors and design of new, improved fuel having a longer lifetime.
Examination of all spent naval fuel is essential to the mission of the Navy for three reasons:
to provide data on current reactor performance, to validate models used to predict future
performance, and to support research to improve reactor design.
Naval fuel examinations provide real data on reactor cores installed in ships currently
operating in the fleet. This information is essential to validate calculational models and analyses.
Through the years, the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program has built a substantial technical database
from examinations of earlier reactor core types. The Program predicts the performance of current
core types with calculational models supported by this database. Essentially no information exists yet
on core types that will form the backbone of the nuclear fleet for the foreseeable future (Trident class
submarines, LOS ANGELES class submarines, and NIMITZ class aircraft carriers). Data from these
reactor core types are necessary to validate basic assumptions of current models, provide a measure of
variability which exists between individual cores and within a single core, and identify any
unanticipated effects of operation that have not been evaluated or accounted for in current models.
Confidence in the validity of engineering models is essential for assurance that ship operations
can continue without restriction. Since reactors operating in the fleet are not taxed to the limits of
their design during peacetime operations, the Program requires a technically sound basis for
continuing to conclude that we have a robust design. Prototype reactors cannot by themselves provide
this information, as their operation is not identical to that of a warship. The fact that a core operated
satisfactorily with no indication of a problem during a normal shipboard lifetime does not guarantee
that the core would have been acceptable under the worst case conditions for which it was designed.
The examination of spent nuclear fuel from each core provides the assurance needed that there are no
unexpected technical issues not evaluated and addressed in the models that would affect continued
unrestricted operation.
Data from examinations also contribute significantly to improvements in reactor design.
Improvements in calculational models and analyses have enabled the Program to increase both the
lifetime and the performance of reactor cores. For example, the reactor cores installed in the
USS NAUTILUS in the 1950's operated for 2 years. Current reactor cores are designed to last over
20 years, a significant technical accomplishment unique to naval fuel. The Navy is seeking to
develop a life-of-the-ship (30-year) core for the New Attack Submarine which is still in the design
stages. This core will further reduce the amount of spent fuel generated in the long-term, as ships
will not require refueling during their lifetime. Continuing data from current core types are essential
if this effort is to succeed.
In the final analysis, examination of naval spent nuclear fuel absorbs considerable resources.
In a time of extremely tight budgets, the Navy would not be performing such examinations unless
they were judged to be necessary to support the conduct of technical work. Examinations done over
the last 37 years have played a key role in achieving over 4500 reactor-years of safe nuclear reactor
operations, having nuclear-powered warships steam over 100,000,000 miles, and increasing core
lifetimes from 2 years to over 20 years. The record shows there is no reason for reducing the
technical basis upon which safe naval reactor design and operation are founded, and that basis
includes, as a key cornerstone, the examination of naval spent nuclear fuel.
A limited quantity of naval fuel is retained following examination for reference and further
study. After examination, most spent fuel is loaded into shielded containers and transferred to the
DOE's Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) at the INEL for storage. The transportation of naval
spent nuclear fuel from shipyards and prototypes is described in Attachment A. The receipt and
handling at ECF of the spent fuel from naval reactors is described in Attachment B.
The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program evaluates small samples of both fuel and non-fuel
materials for possible use in naval reactor systems. The samples are irradiated at the INEL Test
Reactor Area and then examined at ECF. A typical sample undergoes several cycles of irradiation
and examination over several months or years.
The basic process for managing naval spent nuclear fuel starts with the spent fuel from the
reactor plant loaded in a container. There are many stringent control steps in the actual process that
are necessary to ensure the safety and health of the workers, the public, and the environment. These
controls have been established by the conservative philosophy of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion
Program and, as a minimum, meet the applicable regulations of federal and state agen-
cies. Those
controls will also apply to any and all of the alternatives that are being considered for the
management of naval spent nuclear fuel.
Historically, the main steps that have been used for many years for managing spent fuel
consist of the following:
Step 1. The process starts with spent fuel that has been removed from the reactor and loaded in a
shielded shipping container at a prototype site or shipyard authorized to perform naval
reactor refuelings or defuelings.
Step 2. The loaded shipping container is transported by rail to the ECF at the INEL.
Step 3. The spent fuel is received at ECF.
Step 4. The spent fuel is separated from structural material and examined in the ECF water pool.
Step 5. The spent fuel is transferred, in a shielded container, to the ICPP.
At the ICPP, naval spent nuclear fuel is stored in water pools to shield workers from
radiation. Naval nuclear fuel is designed to operate for decades in high-temperature water without
substantial corrosion. This means that it can be stored in the cool water in storage pools with very,
very little corrosion for centuries because the rate of corrosion, which is very slow at the
temperatures inside naval reactors, decreases rapidly as the temperature of the water around the fuel
decreases. Experience at the Expended Core Facility and the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant has
shown that naval spent nuclear fuel has not degraded during many years in water pools.
2.4.2 Facilities Related to Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel
The shipyards that perform the refueling and defueling operations are also responsible for
shipping the naval spent nuclear fuel to the facility where structural material is removed and
examinations are conducted. Since 1957, these operations have been conducted at the ECF at INEL.
After the specified operations and examinations are complete, ECF is responsible for transferring the
spent fuel to ICPP, the storage location.
The operations at the shipyards for removing the spent fuel from the ship require the use of
special, heavily shielded equipment to remove the spent fuel from the reactor to the shipping
container (which is also heavily shielded) while protecting the workers from the radiation from the
spent fuel. The shipping containers are designed and tested to transport the spent fuel by rail while
protecting the workers and any nearby persons from the radiation of the spent fuel. At ECF, the
spent fuel is unloaded from the shipping containers with special, heavily shielded transfer casks to
protect the workers from radiation. The spent fuel is removed from the transfer cask in the water
pool where the depth of the water is sufficient to shield the workers from the radiation of the exposed
spent fuel modules. The subsequent machining operations and examinations of the spent fuel are
performed in the water pool under the required depth of water, or in a heavily shielded cell where
certain operations and examinations can be performed safely. After the work on the spent fuel is
completed, the spent fuel is loaded into a shielded transfer cask (under water) for transit to the storage
location, such as the ICPP. These are the main pieces of special equipment and facilities that are
required to perform the necessary operations with naval spent nuclear fuel. There are many other
pieces of equipment and apparatus that are also used along with the main equipment to do the
necessary work safely and efficiently.
2.5 PLANNED REDUCTIONS IN THE NUMBER OF NUCLEAR-
POWERED NAVAL VESSELS
Following the successful operation of the USS NAUTILUS in 1954, the number of nuclear-
powered submarines and surface ships in the U.S. Navy grew steadily until it reached a peak of just
over 150 ships in 1987. Report NT-94-2 provides a graph of the total number of nuclear-powered
vessels in the U.S. Navy over the years since the beginning of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program
(NNPP 1994b). Since 1988, the number of nuclear-powered vessels in the U.S. Navy has decreased.
The Navy has been able to accomplish its mission with fewer ships, partly because the ships and
crews became more capable over the years and partly because the development of longer-lived nuclear
reactor cores makes it possible for nuclear-powered ships to spend more time on duty and less time in
shipyards being refueled. A major factor in the reduction in the number of nuclear-powered vessels
is that, since the end of the Cold War, the Navy has embarked on a program to reduce the number of
warships in its fleet. With the Navy downsizing from a fleet of almost 600 warships to a fleet of just
over 300, the number of nuclear-powered warships is also diminishing. The actual size of the
nuclear-powered fleet by the year 2000 is expected to be between 80 and 90 vessels having between
95 and 110 reactors (since surface ships have two or more reactors).
Figure 2-1 shows the peak number of nuclear-powered naval vessels in 1987 and the number
of nuclear-powered ships in the fleet for each of the next 10 years under current planning. This
planned reduction reflects the most recent changes in the mission of the U.S. Navy, including the
effects of the end of the Cold War. Under this plan, the number of nuclear-powered naval vessels
will be reduced by the end of the next 10 years to approximately one-half the number at its peak.
The Navy is moving ahead with this plan, but it should be remembered that such plans may change in
the future if Congress alters the Navy's mission in the light of world developments.
This plan for reducing the number of nuclear-powered naval vessels was used in the
development of environmental impacts in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). For example,
the planned reduction in the number of ships in future years is incorporated into all of the impacts
associated with examination or storage of naval spent nuclear fuel reported in this EIS. Similarly, the
timing and number of naval spent nuclear fuel shipments used in the calculation of impacts associated
with transportation are based on this plan.
Figure 2-1. Total number of nuclear-powered ships in the United States Navy. 2.6 REFERENCES
DOE/DOD (U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Defense), 1994, The United States
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, June.
Duncan, F., 1990, Rickover and the Nuclear Navy: the Discipline of Technology, The United States
Naval Institute.
Hewlett, R. G. and F. Duncan, 1974, Nuclear Navy, 1946-1962, The University of Chicago Press.
NNPP (Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program), 1994a, Report NT-94-1, Environmental Monitoring and
Disposal of Radioactive Wastes from U.S. Naval Nuclear Powered Ships and their Support
Facilities, Washington, D.C., March.
NNPP (Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program), 1994b, Report NT-94-2, Occupational Radiation
Exposure from U.S. Naval Nuclear Plants and Their Support Facilities, Washington, D.C.,
March.
3. ALTERNATIVES
This section describes the alternatives which were evaluated for the management of naval spent
nuclear fuel removed during reactor refuelings and defuelings at naval and commercial shipyards and at
the prototype sites. Since Chapter 3 of Volume 1 provides a complete description of the Department of
Energy's alternatives for all types of spent nuclear fuel under its cognizance, the descriptions in this section
are limited to aspects of the alternatives related to naval spent nuclear fuel.
1. No Action: Spent fuel from naval reactors at naval shipyards and prototype sites would be stored
in shielded containers at facilities close to the refueling and defueling sites. There would be no
spent fuel examinations.
2. Decentralization: There are three different variations to this alternative. The first is similar to the
No Action alternative except that additional spent fuel storage options would be pursued. In the
second variation, a limited amount of spent fuel would be examined in detail at Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard to provide information on nuclear fuel performance. This limited amount of fuel would
be stored at the examination site and the remainder would be stored at or near the refueling and
defueling sites. In the third variation, all spent fuel would be shipped to the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory (INEL) Expended Core Facility (ECF) and examined as it has been in the
past, then returned for storage to facilities at or near the refueling and defueling sites; all planned
ECF improvements, including the dry cell expansion (Attachment B), would be completed.
3. 1992/1993 Planning Basis: Spent fuel would continue to be received, examined, and stored at
INEL as it has been in past years. All planned ECF improvements, including the dry cell
expansion (Attachment B), would be completed.
4. Regionalization: Current and future naval spent nuclear fuel would be received, examined, and
stored at the Hanford Site, INEL, the Savannah River Site, the Nevada Test Site, or the Oak Ridge
Reservation. If INEL were the site selected for Regionalization of naval spent nuclear fuel, then
this alternative would be essentially the same as the 1992/1993 Planning Basis alternative.
5. Centralization: Current and future spent fuel would be collected and stored at one Department of
Energy (DOE) site. Examination and storage facilities would be constructed, as necessary. All
examinations would be performed at that one site. There would be no difference between the
Regionalization and the Centralization alternatives for naval spent nuclear fuel.
This section also describes other alternatives which were considered and then eliminated from
detailed analysis.
3.1 NO ACTION
This alternative is restricted to the minimum actions deemed necessary for continued safe and
secure handling and storage of naval spent nuclear fuel. It is important to note that this alternative is not a
status quo condition. Naval reactors would be refueled and defueled as planned. Naval spent nuclear fuel
would be stored in shipping containers at a Navy or DOE facility. These shipping containers would be
modified and recertified as discussed in Section D.1.2.1 of Attachment D. No further naval spent nuclear
fuel examination would be conducted and research and development activities associated with examination
of the spent fuel would not be performed. The Expended Core Facility at INEL would be shut down.
Under this alternative, the transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel to INEL would be ended after
about 3 years, during which additional shipping containers would be purchased and actions to prepare
naval sites to serve as storage locations would be completed (see Section 3.8). The spent fuel from naval
reactors at naval shipyards or active prototype sites would be stored at a naval shipyard or prototype, in
most instances where it was removed from the reactor during servicing. The spent fuel would be removed
from the reactors and placed directly into shipping containers for storage without detailed examination.
Newport News Shipbuilding, a private shipyard located in Newport News, Virginia, does refueling and
defueling work for the Navy. Spent fuel removed from ships refueled or defueled at Newport News
Shipbuilding would be transported to the nearest naval site, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, in Portsmouth,
Virginia. Norfolk Naval Shipyard is about 10 miles (about 250 miles by rail) from Newport News
Shipbuilding. The spent fuel would be stored in such a way that it would be protected from damage or
intruders and that workers, the public, and the environment would be protected. The fuel would remain in
storage until the DOE is prepared to take receipt of the fuel.
Since no additional spent fuel examinations would be performed at ECF, the work associated with
examination of test specimens irradiated in the Advanced Test Reactor at INEL would be transferred to
another site at INEL. The selected site might require modifications to accommodate this work.
If this alternative and its minimum actions were selected, it would be necessary to construct and
certify approximately 500 additional shipping containers and to construct the associated rail spur tracks for
the naval sites to be able to store the spent fuel from all of the nuclear-powered ships that will be refueled
or defueled until the time that a permanent disposal facility becomes operational. During the period of
time when containers would not yet be available, naval spent nuclear fuel would be transported in shipping
containers to the Expended Core Facility at INEL. These containers would be unloaded and used to
support additional refuelings and defuelings.
A major result of this and any other alternative which precludes detailed examination of naval
spent nuclear fuel is that the further development of improved nuclear fuel for U.S. Navy ships would be
hindered. Examination of spent fuel provides useful information on the performance of existing fuel
system designs. Without a continuing flow of such information, eventually confidence in the ability of
naval nuclear fuel to perform satisfactorily under design conditions would decrease. This information is
also important in developing improvements in future fuel designs.
In this context, an alternative which would leave the spent nuclear fuel onboard nuclear-powered
warships was considered. Under such an alternative, refueling and defueling operations would cease and
the nuclear-powered warships would be retired in place at piers at Navy facilities. As discussed in Section
3.6.3 of this Appendix, it was determined that this approach to a "no action" alternative would actually
involve many actions, including a large expansion of pier space, with the resultant ecological impacts, an
increased number of naval personnel assigned to monitoring the retired nuclear-powered ships, a large
reduction in work force at several shipyards, and a reduction in the number of operating nuclear-powered
warships beyond that planned. Consequently, it was concluded that this could not be considered a "no
action" alternative and a more appropriate, and feasible, approach for the No Action alternative was used
as a basis for this Environmental Impact Statement.
Attachment D contains a more detailed description of storing naval spent nuclear fuel at or close to
its removal location.
3.2 DECENTRALIZATION
Under this alternative, DOE would maintain existing naval spent nuclear fuel in storage at INEL,
and new naval spent nuclear fuel would be stored at or near the sites where it was removed from reactors.
Three different variations of this Decentralization alternative have been considered. In general, these
variations are similar to the No Action alternative with regard to their location and method for long-term
storage of spent nuclear fuel. At each storage location under all three options, storage in shipping
containers, dry storage casks, and wet storage in water pools has been considered. All of them would
require a transition period while facilities are developed (see Section 3.8).
3.2.1 Store Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel at or Close to Locations Where
Removed Without Examination
Similar to the No Action alternative, this alternative would include storage of the spent fuel from
reactors at naval shipyards or active prototype sites close to the locations where it was removed during
refueling or defueling. The spent fuel would be placed directly into storage without detailed examina-
tion. Storage would be in water pools, dry casks, or shipping containers. The spent fuel would be protected
from damage or intruders, and workers, the public, and the environment would be protected. The fuel
would remain in storage until a permanent disposal site became available.
No further naval spent nuclear fuel examination would be conducted. Without this examination
program, further development of improved nuclear fuel for U.S. Navy ships would be hindered. Naval
spent nuclear fuel examination provides useful information on the performance of existing fuel system
designs. A continuing flow of such information is needed to prevent confidence in the ability of naval
nuclear fuel to perform satisfactorily under design conditions from decreasing over time. Information from
examination of naval spent nuclear fuel is also important in developing improvements in future designs. In
addition, the work associated with examination of irradiated test specimens, which is also essential to the
development of advanced designs, would no longer be performed at the Expended Core Facility at INEL
and would have to be relocated to other facilities at INEL. The Expended Core Facility at INEL would be
shut down.
The environmental effects associated with this alternative would be determined primarily by the
choice among water pool, dry storage casks, or shipping container storage. The shipping containers could
be mobile storage casks, which could also be used for shipping. Like the other options under this
alternative, a transition period would be required during which it would be necessary to design, construct,
and certify enough shipping containers or dry storage casks to store the spent fuel from all nuclear-powered
ships being refueled or defueled or to design, construct, and certify water pools for fuel storage at naval
sites. During this transition period, naval spent nuclear fuel would continue to be shipped to the Expended
Core Facility at INEL where the shipping containers would be unloaded and used to support additional
refuelings and defuelings.
Attachment D contains a more detailed description of storing naval spent nuclear fuel at or close to
its removal location.
3.2.2 Examine a Limited Amount of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel in the
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Water Pit Facility and Store All
Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel at Navy Facilities
Under this alternative, the existing water pool facility at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, originally
built to support the refueling of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, would be modified to conduct the
maximum amount of naval spent nuclear fuel examinations practical at that site. The difference between
this alternative and the one described in the preceding section is that only a small amount of spent nuclear
fuel could be examined to provide information on nuclear fuel performance for use in the development of
improved nuclear fuel.
The only existing facility available within the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, other than the
facility at ECF, which could be used to examine spent fuel from naval reactors is the water pool at the
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at Bremerton, Washington. However, the use of this facility for visual and
dimensional examinations of high-priority spent fuel assemblies would require removal of the presently
installed aircraft-carrier refueling equipment. As a result, Puget Sound would no longer have the
capability to refuel nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. This facility has no shielded cells for performing
destructive examinations of spent fuel. Although this alternative would provide a limited capability for
examination and analysis of spent fuel, the ability to sustain further development of the advanced nuclear
reactors needed to ensure the safety and performance superiority of U.S. Navy ships would be jeopardized.
Continuous performance of naval spent nuclear fuel examinations at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard would
preclude the performance of aircraft-carrier refuelings at Puget Sound because the needed water pit would
no longer be available.
The limited amount of spent fuel examined in the modified facility and all naval spent fuel
removed from reactors at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard would be stored at that shipyard. The naval spent
fuel removed at other naval shipyards or active prototype sites would be stored at a site close to the
location where it was removed during refueling or defueling. The limited amount of fuel to be examined
would be transported from the originating site to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in the shipping containers
currently used for naval spent nuclear fuel.
Like the other options under this alternative, a transition period would be required for development
of facilities utilizing shipping containers, dry storage casks, or water pools for fuel storage at naval sites.
During this transition period, naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens would continue to be shipped to
the Expended Core Facility at INEL where the shipping containers would be unloaded and used to support
additional refuelings and defuelings.
Under this option, the Expended Core Facility at INEL would be shut down after the end of the
transition period. The examination of irradiated test specimens would be performed as discussed under the
No Action alternative (Section 3.1).
Attachment D contains a more detailed description of the examination and storage of naval spent
nuclear fuel for this alternative. The transportation of fuel to be inspected at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
is described in Attachment A.
3.2.3 Examine All Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel at the INEL and Return to
Naval Facilities for Storage
Under this option, all naval spent nuclear fuel would be shipped to the Expended Core Facility at
the INEL for examination. After examination, this fuel would be returned to a naval or DOE facility for
long-term storage near the location where the fuel was removed from a reactor. The examination of spent
fuel under this alternative would be performed at the INEL Expended Core Facility as has been done in
past years. As with other options under this alternative, the naval spent nuclear fuel would be stored in
shipping containers, dry storage casks, or water pools. All planned improvements to the Expended Core
Facility, including the dry cell expansion, would be completed.
The receipt, examination, and preparation for storage for this alternative would be the same as
described in more detail in Attachment B, and the storage would be the same as that described in
Attachment D for shipyard and prototype storage. Transportation of the spent fuel would be accomplished
in the same manner as described in Attachment A.
3.3 1992/1993 PLANNING BASIS
The practice of transporting spent nuclear fuel removed from naval reactors to the Expended Core
Facility in Idaho for examination would be resumed. Following examination, the spent nuclear fuel would
be transferred to DOE for management at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant pending final disposition.
All planned improvements in fuel examination capability for naval spent nuclear fuel at INEL, including
the ECF dry cell expansion, would be completed. Operation of an ECF Dry Cell Facility is included in the
supporting analysis and the assumptions of this Environmental Impact Statement.
The shipment of naval spent nuclear fuel from shipyards and prototypes to INEL is described in
Attachment A, and receipt and handling at INEL of the spent fuel from naval reactors and active
prototypes is described in Attachment B. Attachment B also includes a description of the ECF Dry Cell
Facility.
3.4 REGIONALIZATION
Two options have been considered under this alternative. Under the first Regionalization option
considered, DOE would manage all spent nuclear fuel at the Hanford, INEL, and Savannah River sites,
allocating each type of spent nuclear fuel to one of these sites according to its characteristics, such as the
type of cladding. Under the second option, spent nuclear fuel under DOE cognizance would be managed
at one DOE site in the eastern portion of the United States and one DOE site in the western part of the
United States, with all spent nuclear fuel assigned to one of these two sites on the basis of its point of
origin. The eastern site would be either the Savannah River Site or the Oak Ridge Reservation, and the
western site would be the Hanford Site, INEL, or the Nevada Test Site. The Expended Core Facility at
INEL would be shut down in all cases where INEL would not be used for naval spent nuclear fuel
examination and storage.
3.4.1 Regionalization Using Storage at Three Sites (Hanford, INEL,
and Savannah River)
This option under the Regionalization alternative would result in all naval spent nuclear fuel being
managed at the INEL in the same manner as the 1992/1993 Planning Basis alternative because all naval
nuclear fuel has similar characteristics and would be managed at a single site. Under DOE plans, all
Zircaloy-clad fuel would be managed at the INEL and since naval fuel is Zircaloy-clad, it would be
assigned to INEL. The practice of transporting spent nuclear fuel removed from naval reactors to the
Expended Core Facility in Idaho for examination would be resumed. Following examination, the fuel
would be transferred to DOE for management at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant pending final
disposition. All planned improvements in fuel examination capability for naval spent nuclear fuel at INEL
would be completed.
3.4.2 Regionalization Using Storage at Only Two Sites
Under this option, DOE would collect all spent nuclear fuel at one existing large DOE site in the
eastern United States (either the Oak Ridge Reservation or the Savannah River Site) and at one existing
large DOE site in the western part of the country (either the Hanford Site, INEL, or the Nevada Test Site).
Spent nuclear fuel would be collected at one or the other of these two sites, based on its original location.
Only one of the two locations would be used for examination and storage of naval spent nuclear fuel under
this option, but the impacts of managing naval spent nuclear fuel at all of the possible sites have been
evaluated because the site for naval spent nuclear fuel has not been chosen.
A new naval spent nuclear fuel examination facility would have to be constructed at the site
selected if it were other than INEL, and the Expended Core Facility at INEL would be shut down. The
new facility would have capabilities equivalent to those of the existing Expended Core Facility at INEL
and would support all examinations and experimental work required for the development of naval reactors.
The new examination facility would be operated by the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program.
Naval spent nuclear fuel would be removed from naval reactors and transported by rail to the new
examination facility, as described in Attachment A. The fuel would be unloaded and examined in the
water pools and shielded cells constructed for this purpose, in a manner similar to that described in
Attachment B. After completion of all examination work, the naval spent nuclear fuel would be
transferred to storage facilities operated by the DOE at the same site. None of the DOE sites considered in
this alternative, other than INEL, currently has facilities adequate to store the amount of spent nuclear fuel
involved in this option. Therefore, the DOE would have to construct new storage facilities suitable for
spent nuclear fuel, including naval spent nuclear fuel, if this option were selected.
It should be understood that the Navy would operate only one facility for examination of all naval
spent nuclear fuel, and all naval spent nuclear fuel examined during the period covered by this
Environmental Impact Statement would be stored at the same DOE site where the examinations would be
performed. Therefore, there are no differences for management of naval spent nuclear fuel between the
Regionalization alternative and the Centralization alternative (described in the next section) for the same
site.
3.5 CENTRALIZATION
As implied by its name, this alternative would collect all current and future DOE spent nuclear
fuel at one DOE site. The sites analyzed include the Hanford Site, INEL, the Savannah River Site, the Oak
Ridge Reservation (ORR), and the Nevada Test Site (NTS). As in the Regionalization alternative, the
Navy would operate a facility for examination of naval spent nuclear fuel at only one DOE site, and all
naval spent nuclear fuel examined during the period evaluated would be stored at the DOE site where it
was examined, so there are no differences between the Regionalization alternative and the Centralization
alternative for management of naval spent nuclear fuel.
If INEL were chosen as the DOE site for centralized long-term storage of naval spent nuclear fuel,
the Expended Core Facility would continue to operate. After examination at the Expended Core Facility,
naval spent nuclear fuel would be transferred to the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant. There would be no
need to modify the Expended Core Facility since it is a safe, modern facility providing all the capabilities
needed for naval spent nuclear fuel examinations. However, any planned facility changes to provide
improved or additional fuel handling and examination capability, such as the ECF Dry Cell Facility, would
be completed.
If a DOE site other than INEL were chosen for the centralized long-term spent nuclear fuel storage
facility, then the Expended Core Facility at INEL would be closed. A new naval spent nuclear fuel
examination facility would need to be constructed at the selected site, or an existing facility would have to
be modified to perform the needed examinations of naval spent nuclear fuel. This facility would provide
capabilities equivalent to those of the existing Expended Core Facility at INEL. Similarly, additional spent
nuclear fuel storage facilities would have to be constructed at the selected site since there are insufficient
facilities at other sites suitable for storage of spent nuclear fuel from INEL.
Adjacent to the Savannah River Site is the site of the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant. This privately
owned facility is not being used currently. It could be purchased at an undetermined price, annexed to the
Savannah River Site, and subsequently modified to provide capabilities equivalent to those at the
Expended Core Facility. Similarly, at Hanford there exists the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility
(FMEF) that could be modified to provide capabilities equivalent to those at the Expended Core Facility.
It is expected that the modifications to either of these two facilities would cost less than the construction of
a new Expended Core Facility.
Shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel to the Expended Core Facility in Idaho would resume during
the first 3 years of the time required to construct a new naval spent nuclear fuel examination facility at the
selected location (see Section 3.8). All naval spent nuclear fuel would be transferred to the central site
after the new facilities were placed into operation.
The receipt, handling, and storage of naval spent nuclear fuel for this alternative are described in
Attachments B and E, and transportation of the spent fuel is described in Attachment A.
3.6 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS
Several other alternatives were considered in addition to those described above. However, these
other alternatives were not analyzed to the same depth as those described above. These alternatives and
the reasons for not analyzing them in detail are discussed in this section.
3.6.1 Use Other Combinations of Sites for Examination and Storage
of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel
Some variations of alternatives can be conceived in which spent fuel would be shipped from the
site at which it was removed from a reactor to some other facility for examination or preparation for
storage and subsequently shipped to another facility for storage. Evaluating all such combina-
tions for examination, treatment, and storage as separate alternatives would be complicated because of the large
number of alternatives which could result. Furthermore, detailed treatment of such a large number of
alternatives would complicate the evaluation of environmental effects.
However, it is not necessary to consider each of these combinations individually because the
processes involved and the possible environmental effects generally can be represented by combinations of
the effects of alternatives already discussed. For example, the impacts of examining spent fuel at a DOE
site other than INEL followed by shipment back to a shipyard for storage would be essentially the same as
those for examination of fuel under the alternative of examination and storage of the fuel at the alternate
DOE site, described in Section 3.5, except for transportation. Continuing the example, the effects of
storing the naval spent nuclear fuel at a shipyard as part of such an alternative would be the same as those
for storing spent fuel at the shipyard without inspection, described in Section 3.2.1. The effects of
shipping the fuel back and forth between the DOE site and a shipyard for such an approach would be
approximately double the effects of shipment to the DOE site for inspection and storage because the same
sites are involved but a second trip would be required to return the fuel from the inspection site to the
storage site.
In a similar fashion, the effects of other possible combinations of inspection and storage sites can
be deduced from combinations of the alternatives discussed in earlier sections. In order to avoid compli
cation and confusion, these alternative combinations were not explicitly analyzed in this statement.
3.6.2 Examine or Store Spent Nuclear Fuel from Naval Reactors in
Foreign Facilities
It would be physically possible to examine and store spent nuclear fuel from naval reactors in
foreign countries. The naval spent nuclear fuel could be shipped safely to a foreign country and safe
storage could be established. However, the characteristics of naval fuel are classified pursuant to the
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Such characteristics include the fuel's
geometry, what requirements govern its design, how it is manufactured, and how it operates in a naval
reactor. These characteristics can be deduced from physical nondestructive examination of the fuel and
from more intrusive means of inspection.
Information classified under the Atomic Energy Act may not be provided to foreign governments
or foreign interests unless the President determines that such access is in the defense interests of the United
States, a government-to-government agreement allowing such access is reached, and proper Congressional
review is afforded to ensure acceptance by the legislative branch.
Characteristics of long-lived U.S. naval fuel, which constitutes virtually all of the naval spent
nuclear fuel evaluated in this Environmental Impact Statement, have never been provided to any foreign
country. It has been long-standing U.S. policy not to provide such information and there is no agreement
currently in existence with any foreign country providing for such access.
U.S. naval fuel also utilizes highly enriched uranium suitable for use in nuclear weapons. Naval
spent nuclear fuel remains highly enriched even after it has completed use in a naval reactor. As such, the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, implementing requirements of the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons, imposes severe restrictions on the transfer of such material to foreign countries. These
restrictions are in addition to those arising from the classified nature of the fuel described above.
Foreign nations provide no unique capabilities or advantages for examination or storage of naval
spent nuclear fuel. In fact, only four other countries (the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the Peoples
Republic of China) build and operate nuclear-powered warships, and none has naval reactor fuel having
the long-lived performance characteristics of U.S. naval reactor fuel. Thus, U.S. capabilities for the
examination of such long-lived fuel are unique and special.
There are also technical and environmental reasons why processing of naval spent nuclear fuel in
foreign facilities is unreasonable. As is discussed in this Environmental Impact Statement, naval spent
nuclear fuel is not expected to require any processing or stabilization - it will likely be suitable for direct
emplacement in a geologic repository owing to its inherent structural strength and integrity, made
necessary by its military application. Processing naval spent nuclear fuel is more difficult than commercial
or DOE fuel for those same reasons, and doing such reprocessing abroad would result in the production of
highly enriched uranium in a foreign country, creating concerns over non-proliferation and nuclear material
safeguards.
Based on these considerations, the alternative of processing or storing naval spent nuclear fuel in
foreign countries is not a reasonable alternative, and thus was eliminated from detailed analysis.
3.6.3 Do Not Remove Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel from
Nuclear-powered Ships
Nuclear-powered warships represent about 40 percent of the Navy's major combatants. The size of
the Navy fleet is based on ensuring that the Navy has sufficient ships in active service at all times to meet
the country's defense commitments, as established by Congress and the President.
It is physically possible to retain spent fuel in the reactors in nuclear-powered vessels and moor the
ships at shipyards until a decision on the ultimate disposition of spent nuclear fuel is reached, making those
ships for which refueling was planned unavailable for further service. However, this approach would
result in these ships being unavailable once their currently installed reactor fuel reaches the end of useful
life. This is impractical because the ships would have to be replaced (a process that of necessity takes
many years and in most instances requires ships that have not been designed) or the Navy would be forced
to operate without the full complement of ships required to execute national policies. Since the entire
submarine fleet is nuclear-powered, including the fleet of ballistic missile submarines which comprise the
least vulnerable part of the nation's strategic deterrent, and our attack submarines which seek out opposing
ballistic submarines as well as play a crucial role in littoral warfare, failure to refuel these units would
result in a unilateral decrease in the nation's strategic deterrent.
Also of particular importance in this regard is the commencement of refueling NIMITZ Class
aircraft carriers which form the backbone of the Navy's fleet. Of twelve operating carriers, six are NIMITZ
Class, with three more under construction to replace older, conventionally powered carriers scheduled for
retirement. Refueling of the USS NIMITZ is scheduled to begin in 1998, but refueling preparations are
already underway for this first-of-a-kind effort. These preparations entail emptying, by late 1995, spent
nuclear fuel from the earlier refueling of the USS ENTERPRISE and defueling of the USS LONG
BEACH. This spent nuclear fuel is at Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. in a special support
facility which is required for the NIMITZ Class refuelings. Once the facility is emptied, it would then be
reconfigured for use, including refurbishment, maintenance, and extensive training of refueling personnel.
If the facility cannot be emptied, the USS NIMITZ and subsequent NIMITZ Class carriers (USS
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, USS CARL VINSON, USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT, US ABRAHAM LINCOLN, and others) which
are scheduled for refueling in succession after the US NIMITZ could not be refueled to rejoin
the fleet at the time they would be required for service. In effect, the Navy would have far
fewer carriers than would be needed to fulfill national security requirements. These requirements
include maintaining continued forward presence in peacetime (which is essential to
deter aggression, encourage global stability, and promote interoperability with our allies) and timely crisis
response. National security requirements also include ability to field forces sufficient to engage in two
simultaneous regional conflicts (such as Operation Desert Storm), as well as operations other than war,
such as Somalia and Haiti. The national security need to ensure that the USS NIMITZ is refueled and
returned to service in the fleet on schedule was certified by the Secretary of Defense in October 1994 and
accepted by the Governor of Idaho in January 1995, when he allowed shipment of naval spent nuclear fuel
from the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. to continue. Additional shipments would be
required after the Record of Decision is issued on this EIS in June 1995 to complete unloading the facility
by late 1995.
Additionally, implementing this alternative would require extensive modifications to facilities at
shipyards, including increasing the number of piers and the availability of waterfront utilities to support the
ships at their moorings. Other shipyard facilities also might have to be modified or replaced as a result of
the use of waterfront space to moor the numbers of ships involved during the 40-year period. The
construction of piers and other needed facilities would cause impacts on the waterfronts and harbors and
could affect the local ecology. For example, dredging would be required along with disposal of dredge
spoils; such activities have been an environmental concern at several Navy facilities.
While this method for storing naval spent nuclear fuel would cause some increase in construction
activities, in the long run it would result in the idling of skilled workers as the shipyards ran out of room
and work schedules were disrupted by the loss of ship servicing work. Mooring the ships without
removing the naval spent nuclear fuel would also utilize highly trained Navy nuclear ship operators in the
unproductive task of watching over shutdown ships. The resources dedicated to providing the additional
moorings would produce no improvements in a shipyard's ability to perform its mission and would actually
decrease its capabilities. The radiological effects on the environment or people in the vicinity would be
negligible as long as the nuclear-powered vessels and propulsion plants were maintained under the same
procedures and discipline used for operating ships, since the environmental effects of operating U.S. Navy
nuclear-powered vessels are well documented and known to be negligible.
Separately, the costs of maintaining the ships with spent nuclear fuel remaining installed under
Navy operating procedures and providing the additional piers and waterfront services and utilities would
be large. The costs of this approach would be high both for ships which are to be decommissioned and for
ships which would normally be refueled and returned to duty. One cost would result from the need to
assign qualified nuclear operators to monitor vessels awaiting refueling or defueling. In the case of ships
which are being decommissioned at the end of their life, the primary cost of this alternative would be the
cost to maintain qualified nuclear operators, shipboard equipment, and associated shipyard support,
including security, to ensure nuclear and radiological safety for the workers and the public. This would be
more expensive than removal of the spent fuel for storage.
Thus, in summary, this alternative would be costly and would involve extensive actions which
would have an effect on the environment due to construction activities. This alternative would also not
permit continued service of many Navy ships and only postpone decisions on a satisfactory storage
location. As a result of these considerations, this alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis.
3.7 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
This section provides a comparison of the alternatives as they relate to the activities which fall
under the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP). The comparison focuses on those areas which are
projected to have the most significant impacts. As discussed in Sections 5.1 through 5.6, the impacts
projected for most impact categories are very small or nonexistent. Such impact categories include: land
use, cultural resources, aesthetic and scenic resources, geology, water resources, ecological resources,
noise, utilities and energy, waste management, and irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.
Consequently, the impacts in these areas provide no basis for distinguish-
ing among alternatives.
It is important to note that in the No Action alternative and in two of the options of the Decentral-
ization alternative, examination of naval spent nuclear fuel would cease or be seriously reduced and
important scientific information would be lost. Beyond this issue, the principal differences among the
alternatives occur in the categories of occupational and public health and safety (including normal
operations and accidents for facility operations and transportation operations), cumulative impacts, and
socioeconomics. Even in these areas, the overall impacts and the differences are small and represent the
few unavoidable adverse effects that remain after the years of experience have been factored into the
operations and the necessary mitigative measures have been applied.
DOE has adopted two quantitative safety goals to limit the risks of fatalities associated with its
nuclear operations. The goals are:
- The risk to an average individual in the vicinity of a DOE nuclear facility for prompt fatalities
that might result from accidents should not exceed one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the
sum of prompt fatalities resulting from other accidents to which members of the population
are generally exposed.
- The risk to the population in the area of a DOE nuclear facility for cancer fatalities that might
result from operations should not exceed one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the sum of all
cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes.
A comparison of the calculated risks associated with each of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion
Program alternatives indicates that the implementation of any of these alternatives would be well within
the DOE facility safety goals.
3.7.1 Summary of Impacts
The most salient of the environmental impacts are summarized below. These impacts are
presented under two categories:
- Human Health Impacts
- Other Impacts.
3.7.1.1 Human Health Impacts. Table 3-1 provides an overall comparison of the alternatives. This
comparison is presented in terms of the increase in the number of cancer fatalities that could occur in the
general population for any given year after an alternative has been implemented and has achieved a stable
level of operation. This increase in the risk of developing fatal cancers is broken down to show how much
risk increase is associated with normal operations, the highest risk facility accident, and transportation
operations. For example, it is calculated that for the 1992/1993 Planning Basis alternative in which naval
spent nuclear fuel would continue to be received, examined, and prepared for storage at the ECF at INEL,
there would be:
- an increase of about 0.0000009 cancer fatalities per year for the general population around
INEL (i.e., about one additional cancer fatality nationwide in 1,000,000 years among the
116,000 people who live within a 50-mile radius of INEL) due to normal ECF operations.
- an increase of 0.000026 cancer fatalities per year for the general population along the
transportation routes due to normal transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel from the
shipyards to the ECF.
- an increase of 0.00000017 cancer fatalities per year for the general population due to the
facility accident with the highest risk (in this case it would be the accidental draining of a
water pool used for examination and storage of naval spent nuclear fuel).
Table 3-1. Risk (fatal cancers to the general population per year) by alternative.
Normal Operations Risk
Transportation Most Severe Risk from a Transportation
Storage Incident-Free Facility Accident Accident Risk(3)
Alternative at NNPP Examination Risk
Sites
1. No Action 2.2 x 10-5 N/A 4.3 x 10-6 2.6 x 10-4 1.1 x 10-7
2. Decentralization
- No Exam 2.2 x 10-5 N/A 4.3 x 10-6 2.6 x 10-4 1.1 x 10-7
- Dry Storage 3.4 x 10-4 N/A 4.3 x 10-6 1.1 x 10-5 1.1 x 10-7
- Water Pool Storage
- Limited Exam 2.2 x 10-5 6.5 x 10-5 1.1 x 10-5 2.6 x 10-4 2.2 x 10-7
2.7 x 10-4 6.5 x 10-5 1.1 x 10-5 1.1 x 10-5 2.2 x 10-7
- Dry Storage
- Water Pool Storage
2.2 x 10-5 8.5 x 10-7 4.1 x 10-5 2.6 x 10-4 1.5 x 10-6
- Full Exam 3.4 x 10-4 8.5 x 10-7 4.1 x 10-5 1.1 x 10-5 1.5 x 10-6
- Dry Storage
- Water Pool Storage
3. 1992/1993 Planning Basis(1) 8.5 x 10-7 2.6 x 10-5 1.7 x 10-7 1.0 x 10-6
4/5. Regionalization or
Centralization(1)(2)
- 8.5 x 10-7 2.6 x 10-5 1.7 x 10-7 1.0 x 10-6
- INEL - 4.0 x 10-6 6.0 x 10-5 4.7 x 10-7 1.7 x 10-6
- Hanford - 1.8 x 10-5 1.5 x 10-4 9.6 x 10-6 1.1 x 10-5
- S. River - 9.0 x 10-8 7.5 x 10-5 7.2 x 10-8 7.5 x 10-6
- NTS - 5.0 x 10-5 1.4 x 10-4 8.4 x 10-6 3.6 x 10-6
- ORR
(1) For alternatives 3, 4, and 5, the risk due to storage of naval spent nuclear fuel is not included in
this evaluation. It is included in
the evaluation of the individual DOE sites.
(2) Both the Regionalization and Centralization alternatives would locate an ECF at one of the five DOE
sites. For this reason, the risk is the
same for these alternatives.
(3) Some of the alternatives would involve a limited number of shipments by sea from Pearl Harbor to Puget
Sound. Even though the probability of a severe accident involving a shipboard fire and release of
radioactivity would be less than 10(-7) per year, the risk of such an accident has been calculated and is
discussed in Attachment F, Section F.1.4.4. The risk of such an accident has been calculated to be 3.5
x 10(-6) per year.
- an increase of 0.000001 cancer fatalities per year for the general population due to risks of
transportation accidents.
Table 3-1 shows that the cancer risks due to Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program activities for any of
the alternatives are small. In all of these cases, thousands of years of repetition of the alternate action
would be required before a single additional fatal cancer would occur. Risk is defined as the product of the
probability of occurrence of an event leading to radiation exposure and the level of impact of exposure to
radiation in terms of the increased number of fatal cancers that would result. A discussion of the key
points in the development of an estimate of cancer fatalities is provided below; more detailed discussions
of the parameters, analyses, and results are provided in Attachments A and F.
The increased number of fatal cancers is based on the calculated increase in exposure to radiation that
would be seen by the general public as a result of each of the alternatives. The average annual exposure to
a member of the population in the U.S. from background radiation is approximately 0.3 rem (300
millirem). The average annual collective exposure to all of the population in the U.S. from background
radiation is approximately 69 million person-rem. When people are exposed to additional radiation, the
number of additional radiation-induced cancer and other health effects needs to be considered. An
estimate for radiation-induced cancer can be briefly summarized as follows:
- In a typical group of 10,000 persons who do not work with radioactive material, a total of
about 2000 (20 percent) will normally die of cancer.
- If each of the 10,000 persons received an additional 1 rem of radiation exposure (10,000
person-rem) in their lifetime, then an estimated 5 additional cancer deaths (0.05 percent)
might occur.
- Therefore, the likelihood of a person contracting fatal cancer during their lifetime could be
increased nominally from 20 percent to 20.05 percent by exposure to 1 additional rem of
radiation.
The "factor" for such a person to contract a fatal cancer, considering all possible organs, can be
expressed as 0.0005 fatal cancers per rem of exposure. This is mathematically equivalent to 5.0 fatal
cancers from 10,000 person-rem of collective exposure to a large group of persons.
Further, a collective exposure of 10,000 person-rem would be expected to produce, on the average,
approximately 7.3 health detriments due to non-fatal and fatal cancers and severe genetic defects. These
are two of the factors for the health detriments that may result from exposure to additional radiation. The
results in this section are given in terms of fatal cancers. The total number of health detriments is the ratio
7.3/5.0 or 1.46 times these values.
The number of detrimental health effects which might result from exposure of a large group of
people to low levels of radiation has been the subject of debate for many years. The calculations of health
effects performed in this Environmental Impact Statement use the relation recommended by the
International Commission on Radiological Protection because it is well-documented and kept up-to-date by
the council. It also is widely accepted by the scientific community as representing a method which
produces estimates of health effects that will not be exceeded. However, there are others who believe that
exposure to low levels of radiation produces more health effects than would be estimated using the
International Commission on Radiological Protection relation. On the other hand, a growing number of
researchers believe that the International Commission on Radiological Protection relation overestimates the
number of detrimental health effects produced by low levels of radiation. In fact, the possibility of no risk
from the levels of radiation resulting from routine naval spent nuclear fuel management cannot be
excluded (CIRRPC 1992). Clearly, using a relation developed by one or the other of these groups would
produce a larger or smaller estimate of the number of health effects than the values presented in this
statement. All of the results of analyses of normal operations and hypothetical accidents in Appendix D
include the calculated exposure in addition to the number of health effects in order to permit independent
calculations using any relation between radiation exposure and health effects judged appropriate.
The risks associated with all of the alternatives are low compared to the risks encountered in daily
life. The risks of normal operations may be placed in perspective by considering other commonly
encountered risks. For example, the average American is exposed to approximately 0.5 millirem each year
from the radioactivity released from combustion of fossil fuels (NCRP 1987), which produces a lifetime
risk of an average individual dying from cancer of about 1 chance in 50,000. As a further comparison, the
naturally occurring radioactive materials in fertilizer used to produce food crops contribute about 1 to 2
millirem per year to an average American's exposure to radiation (NCRP 1987). This results in a risk of
death from cancer between 1 chance in 12,500 and 1 chance in 25,000.
A frame of reference for the risks from accidents associated with spent nuclear fuel management
alternatives can be developed by comparing them to the risks of death from other accidental causes. For
example, the risk of death in a motor vehicle accident is about 1 chance in 80 (NSC 1993). Similarly, the
risk of death for the average American from fires is approximately 1 chance in 500 and the risk of death
from accidental poisoning is about 1 chance in 1000 (NNPP 1994b).
It must be remembered that no member of the public will receive as much as one one-thousandth
of a rem from 40 years of the normal operations associated with any of the alternatives considered.
Examining the results shown in the tables of radiation exposures (Attachments A and F) shows that the
principal source of the difference in the exposures associated with radiation and radioactive materials
released from normal operations and from hypothetical accidents for the alternatives is the number of
people who live in the vicinity of the alternative sites and where they live relative to the facility itself.
When the emissions from the sources are essentially the same, the resulting impacts depend directly on the
size of the surrounding population, on the way the population is distributed around the site in terms of the
distances and directions from the particular facility, and on the characteristics of the local meteorology.
3.7.1.2 Other Impacts. The principal impact in the employment portion of the socioeconomics
category is the number of jobs created by the construction and operation of a new (or modified) facility.
The magnitude of the effect is relatively small in populations of the sizes under consideration, except to
those people who benefit either directly or indirectly from the jobs. The creation of the jobs has some
negative impacts: the jobs may be created at a distant location, or the jobs created locally may cause some
small but adverse effect on the local community in terms of additional people and an increased need for
additional public services.
The cost of operating and constructing new facilities or modifying existing ones to achieve the
necessary capabilities for handling and storing spent fuel is an important economic impact. Depending on
the site affected and the alternative under consideration, the cost may be as much as 5.7 billion dollars for
construction and 40 years of operation.
In the unlikely event of a serious accident involving naval spent nuclear fuel, it is estimated that
only about 210 acres of land would be affected for the most severe case (this is described in more detail in
Attachment F), and in the other accidents analyzed, smaller areas of land would be affected. The affected
area would require decontamination, and during this cleanup access controls would have to be established.
However, due to the limited land area affected, it is judged that these restrictions would only be temporary
and the impact on issues such as economics, treaty rights, tribal resources, ecology, and land use, would be
relatively small and limited in time. The remediation actions would be simpler in rural areas than in urban
areas; however, provided that prudent controls and remediation operations were promptly implemented,
the affected land and buildings could be recovered in either case. As demonstrated in the accident analyses
in Attachments A and F and summarized above, the human health effects are not large and the effects on
wildlife and other biota would also not be large, partly due to the limited area affected.
Examination of naval spent nuclear fuel and irradiated test specimens has been conducted at the
ECF at INEL since 1957. This program has made and continues to make important contributions to the
safety, cost, and operational performance of naval nuclear propulsion plants. However, the No Action
alternative and two of the Decentralization alternatives would result in substantial curtailment of this
program. The Centralization, Regionalization, 1992/1993 Planning Basis, and the Decentralization - Full
Examination alternatives would maintain the needed examination capability.
The safety of operating naval reactor plants has benefitted directly from the ECF examination
programs. The result has been the construction of rugged reactor cores that are more tolerant of extreme
conditions (such as corrosion, high temperatures, and intense radiation) without release of any fission
products. The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program's commitment to improved safety continues to be driven
by two major issues:
- Protection of the Environment - In more than 40 years of operating and maintaining reactors
in very demanding conditions, the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program has never experienced
a reactor accident, criticality accident, or a release of radioactivity that has had a significant
effect on the environment.
- Personnel Safety - The importance of ensuring the integrity of the fuel is emphasized by the
fact that the sailors onboard the ships live in very close proximity to an operating reactor 24
hours a day. Any release of radioactivity from the fuel into the reactor coolant would
increase the radiation exposure of the ship's crew.
Since the inception of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, the useful lifetime of naval reactors
has been extended by more than a factor of 10. The examination programs at ECF played a major role in
making this improvement possible. As a result of the extended reactor lifetimes, billions of dollars in ship
refueling costs and spent nuclear fuel storage costs have been saved. In addition, longer reactor lifetimes
permit the ships to spend a larger fraction of their lifetime on sea duty rather than in the shipyards, thus
saving costs by reducing the number of ships required. Further reductions in nuclear propulsion plant
costs are being pursued through improvements in many areas of nuclear fuel systems.
The improvements in nuclear fuel performance that have been developed in part through the
knowledge gained from the examination program have contributed to improved ship operational
characteristics. Major improvements have been made in power density, maneuverability, stealth, and
simplicity. These improvements translate into important tactical advantages for our ships. Maintaining
this advantage with ever improving technologies elsewhere in the world is vitally important to the safety of
our sailors and to protecting our national interests.
In the final analysis, the most important differences are:
- The transfer of jobs associated with the Expended Core Facility among the alternative sites
considered for locating the examination facility, or the outright loss of these jobs at INEL.
- The costs if new facilities are required.
- The loss or maintenance of naval spent nuclear fuel examination capability.
Sections 3.7.2, 3.7.3, and 3.7.4 provide additional summary information on the principal areas of
impact.
3.7.2 Impacts Due to Normal Operations
During normal operations, there are public impacts due to direct radiation or due to the release of
radioactive materials to the environment. These impacts are presented in the form of potential cancer
fatalities due to exposure to the small amounts of radiation involved or radioactive materials released. It is
important to emphasize that these cancer fatalities are calculated results rather than actual expected
fatalities. This is because the expected number of such fatalities during normal operations is so small as to
be unmeasurable and indistinguishable relative to the larger number of such deaths expected from naturally
occurring conditions and other man-made effects not related to naval spent fuel operations. This is not
meant to trivialize the importance of radiation-induced cancer fatalities but, rather, is meant to put the issue
in perspective.
Table 3-2 presents a summary comparison of the calculational prediction of the number of fatal
cancers per year that might be expected due to normal operations within each of the alternatives under
consideration for naval spent nuclear fuel handling. This table provides the calculated impacts to the entire
population. The impacts to selected individuals including workers are provided in Attachments A and F.
Table 3-2 reflects the two possibilities (water pool and dry storage) for storing naval spent nuclear fuel at
the Navy sites. In the case of dry storage at Navy sites, the impact from normal operations is due to
calculated levels of direct radiation from storage casks at the shipyards. The environmental releases that
were used to calculate the water pool values in the table are based on measured releases from the existing
Expended Core Facility at the INEL. Also, the way in which direct radiation or environmental releases
impact the population would be a function of the population distribution and the meteorological conditions
present at the release location. To account for these differences, actual data on the population and
meteorology for the various specific sites were used. The data in Table 3-2 are for a typical year in the
future when the situation has stabilized at each location (that is, capabilities consistent with those described
for the stated alternative have been achieved and are in operation at a facility at the indicated site).
All alternatives have some estimated number of fatalities, albeit a very small fraction. The lowest
estimated number of cancer fatalities is associated with the 1992/1993 Planning Basis, Regionalization at
INEL, and Centralization - INEL alternatives. The largest single estimate for the total number of cancer
fatalities is only 0.00038 per year for the Decentralization - Full Examination alternative. Another way to
view this is that if this alternative is selected and operations continue for
Table 3-2. Fatal cancers per year to the general population from normal operations.
Puget Pearl
Alternative INEL Sound Harbor Portsmouth Norfolk Keesel- Transpor-
ring tation Total
1. No Action - 1.2 x 9.3 x 10- 2.3 x 2.1 x 10- 4.1 x 4.3 x 10-6 2.7 x
10-6 9 10-7 5 10-12 10-5
2. Decentraliza-
tion
- No Exam - 1.2 x 9.3 x 10- 2.3 x 2.1 x 10- 4.1 x 4.3 x 10-6 2.7 x
- Dry Storage - 10-6 9 10-7 5 10-12 4.3 x 10-6 10-5
- Water Pool 6.5 x 7.0 x 10- 2.3 x 1.4 x 10- 4.1 x 3.4 x
Storage 10-5 5 10-5 4 10-5 10-4
- 1.1 x 10-5
- 1.1 x 10-5
- Limited Exam 6.6 x 9.3 x 10- 2.3 x 2.1 x 10- 4.1 x 9.8 x
10-5 9 10-7 5 10-12 10-5
- Dry Storage 8.5 x 6.5 x 7.0 x 10- 2.3 x 1.4 x 10- 4.1 x 4.1 x 10-5 3.5 x
- Water Pool 10-7 10-5 5 10-5 4 10-5 4.1 x 10-5 10-4
Storage 8.5 x
10-7
- Full Exam 1.2 x 9.3 x 10- 2.3 x 2.1 x 10- 4.1 x 6.4 x
10-6 9 10-7 5 10-12 10-5
- Dry Storage 6.5 x 7.0 x 10- 2.3 x 1.4 x 10- 4.1 x 3.8 x
- Water Pool 10-5 5 10-5 4 10-5 10-4
Storage
Savannah
Alternative INEL Hanford River NTS ORR Transportation Total
3. 1992/1993 8.5 x - - - - 2.6 x 10-5 2.7 x
Planning Basis 10-7 10-5
4/5. Regionalization
or
Centralization 8.5 x - - - - 2.6 x 10-5 2.7 x
10-7 4.0 x - - - 6.0 x 10-5 10-5
- INEL - 10-6 1.8 x 10- - - 1.5 x 10-4 6.4 x
- Hanford - - 5 9.0 x - 7.5 x 10-5 10-5
- S. River - - - 10-8 5.0 x 10- 1.4 x 10-4 1.7 x
- NTS - - - - 5 10-4
- ORR 7.5 x
10-5
1.9 x
10-4
10,000 years, between three and four extra cancer fatalities might be expected
in that entire time period due to normal operations.
3.7.3 Impacts Due to the Most Severe Accidents
Accidents may occur during operation of naval spent nuclear fuel handling and storage facilities and
during transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel. Specific accidents considered to be more severe than all
other reasonably foreseeable accidents were analyzed to determine their potential impacts on the general
population. For sites with spent fuel storage in water pools, the facility accident analyzed was a drained
water pool or an accidental criticality since these produced the greatest consequences. For sites with dry
spent fuel storage, the facility accident analyzed was an airplane crash if its probability was greater than
1 x 10-7 per year (1 chance in 10 million per year); otherwise, a wind-driven missile was the accident
analyzed. Details of analyses of foreseeable accidents which might occur during fuel handling and storage
are described in Attachment F. Details of the transportation accident analyses are described in Attachment
A.
In Table 3-3, the potential impacts of facility and transportation accidents with the greatest
consequences are expressed in terms of fatal cancers per accident. These are calculated by using the
relation that 0.0005 cancer fatalities could occur for each person-rem of exposure for the general
population. The impacts are based on hypothetical occurrences of the accidents and do not reflect the very
low probabilities of the accidents actually occurring. For each alternative, the maximum impact of either a
facility or transportation accident is listed rather than a total of the individual impacts since it is reasonable
that only one severe accident would occur at one time.
For facility accidents, the greatest potential impact is associated with dry spent fuel storage at the
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. This is due to an airplane crash into a dry storage container. For
transportation accidents, the risks vary with the distances to be traveled, being least for the No Action and
the Decentralization - No Examination alternatives which involve only minimal transportation to local
storage.
Table 3-4 lists the most severe risks (probability of occurrence times the number of fatal cancers) from
facility accidents in terms of potential cancer fatalities per year.
Table 3-3. Most severe consequences (fatal cancers to the general population) from an accident.+
Puget Pearl
Alternative INEL(1) Sound(2) Harbor(3) Ports Norfolk(3) Kess- Trans- Maximum
mouth(3) lring(3) portation(5)
1. No Action* - 0.017 26 9.0 16 7.5 0.013 26
2. Decentraliza-
tion
- No Exam - 0.- 26 9.0 16 7.5 0.013 26
- Dry Storage - 017 1.1 0.34 0.60 0.25 0.013 1.1
- Water Pool 0.51
Storage
- 26 9.0 16 7.5 0.065 26
- 0.017 1.1 0.34 0.60 0.25 0.065 1.1
- Limited Exam 0.51
- Dry Storage 0.017 26 9.0 16 7.5 1.7 26
- Water Pool 0.017 0.0- 1.1 0.34 0.60 0.25 1.7 1.7
Storage 17
0.51
- Full Exam
- Dry Storage
- Water Pool
Storage
Alternative INEL(1) Hanford Savannah NTS(4) ORR(4) Transportation Maximum
3. 1992/1993 Planning 0.017 - - - - 2.1 2.1
Basis
4/5. Regionalization
or
Centralization 0.017 - - - - 2.1 2.1
- 0.047 - - - 2.1 2.1
- INEL - - 4.8 - - 2.1 4.8
- Hanford - - - 0.18 - 2.1 2.1
- S. River - - - - 8.4 2.1 8.4
- NTS
- ORR
+ Based on accidents with a probability of occurrence of 1 x 10-7 or greater.
* Dry storage is the only option considered under the No Action alternative.
(1) The most severe accident is a drained water pool.
(2) The most severe accident involving storage or examination in a water pool is a drained water pool.
For the dry storage alternatives, the most severe accident is mechanical damage from a wind-driven missile.
The limited exam - dry storage option at Puget Sound also includes examination in a water pool; the consequences
shown for this option are due to accidents occurring during dry storage operations only.
(3) The most severe accident is from a plane crash for dry storage and a drained water pool for water pool storage.
(4) The most severe accident is from a plane crash.
(5) Some of the alternatives would involve a limited number of shipments by sea from Pearl Harbor to Puget Sound.
Even though the probability of a severe accident involving a shipboard fire and release of radioactivity would be
less than 10-7 per year, the risk of such an accident has been calculated and is discussed in Attachment F,
Section F.1.4.4. The most severe consequences of such an accident have been calculated to be 51.5 cancer fatalities.
Table 3-4. Most severe risk to the general population from a facility accident.
Puget Pearl
Alternative INEL(1) Sound(2) Harbor(3) Portsmouth(3) Norfolk(3) Kesselring(3) Maximum
1. No Action - 1.7 x 2.6 x 10-4 9.0 x 10-7 1.6 x 10-5 7.5 x 10-7 2.6 x 10-4
10-7
2. Decentraliza-
tion
- No Exam - 1.7 x 2.6 x 10-4 9.0 x 10-7 1.6 x 10-5 7.5 x 10-7 2.6 x 10-4
- Dry Storage - 10-7 1.1 x 10-5 3.4 x 10-6 6.0 x 10-6 2.5 x 10-6 1.1 x 10-5
- Water Pool Storage 5.1 x
10-6
- 2.6 x 10-4 9.0 x 10-7 1.6 x 10-5 7.5 x 10-7 2.6 x 10-4
- 1.1 x 10-5 3.4 x 10-6 6.0 x 10-6 2.5 x 10-6 1.1 x 10-5
- Limited Exam 1.7 x
10-7
- Dry Storage 1.7 x 5.1 x 2.6 x 10-4 9.0 x 10-7 1.6 x 10-5 7.5 x 10-7 2.6 x 10-4
- Water Pool 10-7 10-6 1.1 x 10-5 3.4 x 10-6 6.0 x 10-6 2.5 x 10-6 1.1 x 10-5
Storage 1.7 x
10-7
- Full Exam 1.7 x
10-7
- Dry Storage 5.1 x
- Water Pool 10-6
Storage
Savannah
Alternative INEL(1) Hanford(1) River(4) NTS(4) ORR(4) Maximum
3. 1992/1993 Planning 1.7 x - - - - 1.7 x 10-7
Basis 10-7
4/5. Regionalization or
Centralization
1.7 x - - - - 1.7 x 10-7
- INEL 10-7 4.7 x - - - 4.7 x 10-7
- Hanford - 10-7 9.6 x 10-6 - - 9.6 x 10-6
- S. River - - - 7.2 x 10-8 - 7.2 x 10-8
- NTS - - - - 8.4 x 10-6 8.4 x 10-6
- ORR - -
* Dry storage is the only option considered under the No Action alternative.
(1) The most severe accident is from a drained water pool.
(2) The most severe accident involving storage or examination in a water pool is a drained water pool.
For the dry storage alternatives, the most severe accident is mechanical damage from a wind-driven
missile. The limited exam - dry storage option at Puget Sound also includes examination in a water
pool; the risks shown for this option are due to accidents occurring during dry storage operations only.
(3) The most severe accident is from a plane crash for dry storage and a drained water pool for water
pool storage.
(4) The most severe accident is from a plane crash.
3.7.4 Cumulative, Socioeconomic, and Cost Impacts
A summary of the estimated cumulative impacts from the radiological operations associated with
each of the alternatives evaluated in detail is presented in Table 3-5. It is based on achieving a stable level
of operation by 1995 for any given alternative. The impacts are expressed as fatal cancers to the
population within 80 kilometers (50 miles) and apply to the reasonably foreseeable impacts for the 40-year
period ranging from 1995 to 2035. The impacts were based on annual results for normal operations
multiplied by 40. The impacts due to both wet and dry storage are presented. For the cumulative effect of
storage at Navy shipyards and prototypes, the sum over all the Navy sites was used to provide a
comparison for the same amount of fuel. The total for each alternative was then calculated by summing
the fatal cancers for transportation, receipt and examination operations, and storage. The results show that
the impacts for all alternatives would be negligible.
The historical impact of transportation and ECF operations for the period ranging from 1958 to
1995 was calculated to be about 0.001 fatal cancers. This is the total number of fatal cancers that are
estimated among the several million people along transportation routes coupled with the 116,000 people
located within 50 miles of INEL. This estimate was based on the calculated incident-free transportation
results from Attachment A, and the calculated results of normal operations and storage from Attachment F.
The calculated results from Attachment F were adjusted from an annual basis (1995) to the historical basis
by multiplying by 38 years and by a factor of 1.7 to take into consideration the variations in the number of
ships and operations. No extra factor was applied to the estimates of the historical impact or the future
impact to account for the vulnerabilities that might be associated with facility or spent fuel aging because
naval spent nuclear fuel is very strong and has very high integrity (Section 2.2), and historical experience
has disclosed no important vulnerability. The factor of 1.7 represents the ratio of the average to the current
radiation exposures received by all military and civilian personnel in the Naval Nuclear Propulsion
Program during the historical period (NNPP 1994a). In the case of the Limited Examination alternative,
the analysis includes both the material shipped to Puget Sound for examination and storage, as well as the
material stored there and at other sites from defuelings without examination.
Table 3-6 presents the cumulative impact from the radiological operations to a hypothetical
maximally exposed worker and a hypothetical maximally exposed individual at the site boundary. The
impacts are presented in terms of the likelihood of fatal cancer for the affected individual. These
Table 3-5. Summary of cumulative impacts (fatal cancers to the general population).
Fatal Cancers (1995-2035)1
Storage3 Total
Exam (Dry) (Dry)
Alternative Transport2 Operations3 [Wet] [Wet]
1. No Action 1.7 x 10-4 0 (9.0 x 10-4)** (0.0011)**
2. Decentralization
- No Exam 1.7 x 10-4 0 (9.0 x 10-4) (0.0011)
[0.014] [0.014]
- Limited Exam 4.2 x 10-4 0.0026 (9.0 x 10-4) (0.0039)
[0.011] [0.014]
- Full Exam 0.0017 3.4 x 10-5 (9.0 x 10-4) (0.0026)
[0.014] [0.015]
3. 1992/1993 0.0011 3.4 x 10-5 * 0.0011
Planning Basis
4/5. Regionalization or
Centralization
- INEL 0.0011 3.4 x 10-5 * 0.0011
- Hanford 0.0024 1.6 x 10-4 * 0.0026
- Hanford/FMEF 0.0024 1.6 x 10-4 * 0.0026
- S. River 0.0060 7.2 x 10-4 * 0.0067
- S. River/Barnwell 0.0060 7.2 x 10-4 * 0.0067
Plant
- Nevada Test Site 0.0030 3.6 x 10-6 * 0.0030
- Oak Ridge 0.0055 0.0020 * 0.0075
Reservation
___________________________
Notes:
1 Fatal cancers for 1958-1995 were calculated to be about 0.001 for transport and ECF operati-
ons.
Fatal cancers were calculated at 5.0 x 10-4 fatal cancers per person-rem.
2 Values from Attachment A.
3 Values from Attachment F.
*DOE storage, not NNPP.
**There is no wet storage under the No Action alternative.
Table 3-6. Likelihood of fatal cancer from cumulative radiation dose.
Maximally Exposed Worker Maximally Exposed Individual
Total Likelihood Total Likelihood
Radiation Dose of Fatal Radiation Dose of Fatal
(rem) Cancer (rem) Cancer
1. No Action 4.7 0.0019 0.12 6.0 x 10-5
2. Decentralization
- No Exam 4.7 0.0019 0.12 6.0 x 10-5
- Limited Exam 4.7 0.0019 0.12 6.0 x 10-5
- Full Exam 4.7 0.0019 0.12 6.0 x 10-5
3. 1992/1993 3.4 0.0014 1.0 x 10-5 5.0 x 10-9
Planning Basis
4/5. Regionalization or
Centralization
- INEL 3.4 0.0014 1.0 x 10-5 5.0 x 10-9
- Hanford 3.4 0.0014 9.6 x 10-6 4.8 x 10-9
- Hanford/FMEF 3.4 0.0014 1.8 x 10-5 9.0 x 10-9
- S. River 3.4 0.0014 1.9 x 10-5 9.5 x 10-9
- S. River/Barnwell 3.4 0.0014 1.5 x 10-4 7.5 x 10-8
Plant
- Nevada Test Site 3.4 0.0014 1.4 x 10-5 6.8 x 10-9
- Oak Ridge 3.4 0.0014 0.0040 2.0 x 10-6
Reservation
values were determined based on a projected 40-year exposure at the location of the affected individual.
The radiological doses for workers represent the largest average dose from the particular facilities involved
in an alternative. The average radiation dose for workers was selected by using the 1993 annual average
shipyard or DOE site radiation exposure summaries (NNPP 1994b; NNPP 1994c). The radiological doses
for maximum off-site individuals are the largest values calculated for a person located at the site boundary,
closest to any facility involved under an alternative. These doses are based on the values for these
individuals presented in Attachment F.
Employment impacts were determined from the nature of each alternative based on the experience
at INEL. Table 3-7 presents a summary of potential socioeconomic impacts at each of the various sites for
each of the alternatives evaluated in detail. The results indicate that as many as 500 long-term jobs and
several hundred shorter-term construction jobs might be lost or gained at an affected site depending on the
alternative selected.
Cost impacts were estimated from the nature of each alternative based on experience at INEL.
Table 3-8 presents a summary of the cost impacts for each of the alternatives evaluated in detail. The
summary provides the costs which would be incurred from construction as well as transportation and
operation costs over the next 40 years. In all alternatives, there would be large costs, ranging up to $5.7
billion. For three of the alternatives involving continued operation of the ECF at INEL (1992/1993
Planning Basis, Regionalization at INEL, and Centralization at INEL), there would be only minor
construction cost impact; however, the cost of continued ECF operation for an additional 40 years would
be $2.6 billion. The cost values considered in preparing Table 3-8 include facility construction costs
ranging from zero for alternatives involving no new facilities to a high of $800 million for those requiring
a new facility with full examination capability. The transportation costs depend on destination and
logistics and range from a low of $10 million to a high of $110 million. Fuel storage container costs range
from a low of zero for those alternatives utilizing water pool storage to a high of $3.2 billion for shipping
containers on railcars for the No Action alternative. Also included are operating costs over 40 years
ranging up to $2.6 billion for the various alternatives, and Idaho ECF shutdown costs for those alternatives
in which the present ECF is shut down.
Table 3-7. Summary of potential socioeconomic impacts.
Impacts Associated with the Affected Site
Five NNPP Sites
Savannah Nevada
River Test Site
Alternative INEL Hanford ORR Exam. Store
1. No Action Lose 500 No change No change No change No change No change Add 50-100 jobs
jobs
2. Decentralization
- No Exam Lose 500 No change No change No change No change No change Add 50-200 jobs
jobs
- Limited Exam Lose 500 No change No change No change No change Add 60 jobs Add 50-200 jobs
at Puget
jobs
Sound
- Full Exam No change No change No change No change No change No change Add 50
-200 jobs
3. 1992/1993 No change No change No change No change No change No change No change
Planning
Basis
4/5. Regionalization or Centralization
- INEL No change No change No change No change No change No change No change
- Hanford Lose 500 Gain 500 No change No change No change No change No change
jobs perm. jobs
and some
const. jobs
- S. River Lose 500 No change Gain 500 No change No change No change No change
jobs perm. jobs
and some
const.
jobs
- Nevada Lose 500 No change No change Gain 500 No change No change No change
Test jobs perm.
Site jobs and
some
const.
jobs
- Oak Ridge Lose 500 No change No change No change Gain 500 No change No change
Reservation jobs perm. jobs
and some
const.
jobs
Table 3-8. Summary of cost impacts over 40 years.
Cost ($ Billions)
No Action 3.6
Decentralization
- No Exam 1.5 - 3.4*
- Limited Exam 1.8 - 3.7*
- Full Exam 3.8 - 5.7*
1992/1993 Planning Basis 2.6
Regionalization or Centralization
- INEL 2.6
- Hanford 3.4
- Savannah River 3.5
- Nevada Test Site 3.5
- Oak Ridge Reservation 3.5
___________________________
* The cost varies under this alternative depending on the mode of storage. The most expensive
options are those that use shipping containers for storage; the
least expensive options are those that use immobile dry storage containers.
The largest cost ($3.8 to $5.7 billion) would be needed for new storage facilities or containers in
addition to the ECF operational costs under the Decentralization - Full Examination alternative.
Approximately $0.8 billion would be needed for the construction of new receipt, handling, and
examination facilities at the alternative site if a Regionalization or Centralization alternative other than
INEL were selected, thereby resulting in a cost of $3.5 billion over 40 years of operation. Somewhat less
than $800 million would be needed for modifications to existing facilities if either of those options at
Hanford or Savannah River were selected. Also, if the alternative involving the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel
Plant at Savannah River were selected, additional funds would be needed to buy the Barnwell Plant as well
as to modify it to meet the Program needs.
A hidden cost associated with the No Action alternative and two of the Decentralization
alternatives is the loss or major reduction in the capability to examine naval spent nuclear fuel. Full
examinations of naval spent nuclear fuel at the Expended Core Facility at INEL have been conducted since
1957. The examinations are a critical aspect of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program's ongoing advanced
fuel research and development program. The information derived from the examinations at ECF provides
engineering data on nuclear reactor environments, material behavior, and design performance. These data
contribute to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program in two very significant ways.
First, this information is used to support the design of new reactors having extended lifetimes. For
example, such examinations have contributed to extending the life of naval fuel from 2 years for the first
reactor core in USS NAUTILUS to over 20 years for the latest nuclear-powered warships. The ultimate
goal is to develop naval nuclear fuel that lasts the life of the ship; this would mean that no refuelings would
be needed. Longer-lived fuel allows fewer refuelings, saves money in the costs of fuel and in the costs of
work on ships, makes ships available for longer periods of service, and creates less spent nuclear fuel.
Second, information from these examinations has supported the operation of existing naval reactors by
providing confirmation of proper design and allowing the fuel they contain to be used for the longest
possible time.
Thus, the examinations of naval spent nuclear fuel are an integral part of the outstanding record of
nuclear safety of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. In over 4500 reactor-years of operation and more
than 300 refuelings and defuelings of naval reactors, there has never been a nuclear reactor accident,
criticality accident, or any release of radioactivity that has had a significant effect on the environment.
Preventing release of radioactivity from the fuel is extremely important to the safety of the Navy personnel
who operate the nuclear-powered warships since they must live aboard ship in close proximity to the
reactor 24 hours a day.
While it is difficult to quantify the benefits of an outstanding safety record, increased core life
yields an understandable economic gain. The gain is in a reduction in the number of reactor cores that
must be procured and in the number of refuelings. Another gain is the increased on-line availability of
nuclear-powered warships which is reflected in a decreased number of ships required. It is estimated that
by achieving life-of-the-ship fuel and thus eliminating the need for any refuelings, a savings of
approximately $5 billion will accrue for a force structure of less than 100 ships. The improve-
ment in life from 2 years to 20 years has already avoided the need to perform 15 refuelings over the lifetime of each
ship and reduced that to a single refueling.
3.8 TRANSITION PERIOD
A transition period would be required before any of the alternatives considered for naval spent
nuclear fuel management could be fully implemented, except for those which would resume the historical
practice of shipping naval spent nuclear fuel to the Expended Core Facility at INEL, followed by transfer
to the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant for storage. This transition period would be needed to obtain the
necessary additional funding and to build the necessary facilities and equipment.
For example, if the Record of Decision were to identify that the alternative of Centralization at
Savannah River had been selected, a new Expended Core Facility would have to be funded and built at the
Savannah River Site before shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel from shipyards could be directed to
Savannah River. Similarly, if the No Action alternative were selected, additional shipping containers
would have to be built since the available shipping containers for naval spent nuclear fuel will all be filled
and waiting at the shipyards in June 1995.
Impacts of all alternatives evaluated for naval spent nuclear fuel management are low. Thus, the
impacts of combinations of alternatives would also be low. The Environmental Impact Statement focuses
on impacts at the time of full implementation in order to simplify the discussion and to calculate ceilings
for the impacts. By doing so, it assures that impacts greater than those analyzed would not occur if one
alternative were used for a small fraction of the 40-year period followed by a shift to another alternative for
the remainder of the 40 years. This section discusses a transition period which is believed to represent a
rapid but practical shift from the situation in June 1995 to full implementation of the ultimate alternative
selected in the Record of Decision. This transition period would be about the same length for any
alternative.
It is expected that the transition period would consist of 3 years of shipments of containers from
the shipyards or prototypes to ECF at INEL beginning with issue of the Record of Decision in June 1995,
and include approximately 80 total shipments. This would result in shipping to INEL the containers which
had been filled and at the shipyards at that time. Many of the containers would then be emptied at ECF
and returned to the shipyard where they would be reloaded. During this 3-year period, some of these
containers would make a second trip to ECF at INEL for unloading after being returned to the shipyard.
After these 3 years of shipments, no further shipments to INEL would be made, and the Expended Core
Facility at INEL would be shut down. The shipping containers would then be refilled during the next 3
years, but kept at the shipyards or shipped to the location of the new examination or storage facilities.
If an alternative which does not continue storage of naval spent nuclear fuel at INEL were
selected, procurement and contract actions to implement the course of action selected in the Record of
Decision would be initiated during these two 3-year periods. In accordance with the course of action
selected in the Record of Decision, additional shipping containers or immobile dry storage casks would be
built or construction of water pools would be initiated at shipyards or a new ECF at a DOE site would be
started. It is assumed that these procurements or construction would have proceeded sufficiently that the
shift to the selected option would be in full swing at this time.
3.9 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR NAVAL SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL
The specific elements discussed in each category of environmental impacts have been evaluated to
determine the Navy's preferred alternative for managing naval spent nuclear fuel until means for permanent
disposition become available. The costs and mission impacts have also been considered in selecting a
preferred alternative.
Environmental Impacts: This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documents the potential
environmental impacts of each alternative for naval spent nuclear fuel management. It considers
environmental impacts under normal operations and hypothetical accident conditions on resources such as
water quality and wetlands, air quality, land use, and public health. This EIS considers a range of potential
accident initiators, such as natural hazards, transportation, and fuel handling.
The analyses demonstrate that the environmental impacts of implementing any of the alternatives
would be very small for both normal operations and accident conditions. All alternatives would result in
radiological impacts well below established DOE safety performance goals (SEN-35-91) of one tenth of
one percent of the risk of fatal cancers from all sources (including natural causes). The impacts from any
of the alternatives in non-radiological areas would also be extremely small. The analysis results do not
provide a basis to distinguish among the alternatives in most of these areas.
Socioeconomic Impacts: The socioeconomic impact of implementing each of the alternatives
would differ somewhat. The primary determinant of socioeconomic impact of the alternatives considered
is employment. Total nation-wide employment levels would not vary significantly among alternatives for
managing naval spent nuclear fuel, and therefore do not seem to provide a basis to distinguish among the
alternatives. The maximum impact on existing employment levels would arise from alternatives requiring
development of new naval spent nuclear fuel examination capability at a DOE facility other than INEL
while terminating these activities at INEL. Resuming current practices of transporting naval spent nuclear
fuel to the ECF at INEL for examination followed by transfer to the DOE for storage would result in the
minimum disruption of employment levels.
Mission Impacts: Two important components of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program operations
are the safe management of naval spent nuclear fuel and support of the Navy's fleet of nuclear-powered
warships. Based on the analyses in this EIS, all alternatives considered would allow safe storage of naval
spent nuclear fuel until permanent disposition. However, some of the alternatives would not provide equal
levels of Fleet support. Alternatives which limit or terminate naval spent nuclear fuel examination would
severely impact ongoing research and development work. Naval spent nuclear fuel examination results are
used to confirm the adequacy of design features, explore material performance, and confirm or adjust
computer predictions of fuel performance. This information contributes to design and manufacturing of
new naval reactor cores as well as understanding of operating ships. Each spent naval reactor core has its
own unique manufacturing and operating history. Consequently, examination of each reactor core
provides an opportunity to obtain new information relevant to reactor core performance. As discussed in
Section 2.4.1 of this Appendix, the technical feedback obtained through this examination program is
essential to extending the lifetime of naval reactor cores and assuring their operational safety. It is also
important to understand that because of their long service lives, the first of the naval cores currently being
used in LOS ANGELES Class submarines are just now being removed from operating reactors and
becoming available for examination. The first cores from NIMITZ Class aircraft carriers and OHIO Class
submarines have yet to be removed. These cores are the basis for all of the current fleet designs and are
the starting point for new designs. Of the alternatives allowing full examination at the INEL, Hanford Site,
Savannah River Site, Oak Ridge Reservation, or Nevada Test Site, examination at the INEL would have
the smallest mission impact due to the presence of existing facilities and equipment for performing this
work, and the presence of a highly skilled work force, all of which would need to be relocated or
reassembled if a new examination site were selected.
Cost Impacts: There are large differences in the costs associated with all alternatives. Few
additional costs would be associated with continuing the historic practice of shipping naval spent nuclear
fuel to INEL for examination, followed by transfer to the DOE for storage pending permanent disposition.
Alternatives involving developing facilities for storage of naval spent nuclear fuel at naval shipyards or
developing examination facilities at a DOE site other than INEL would involve billions of dollars in
additional costs, relative to historic practices, without any discernible improvement in safety or reduced
environmental impacts.
Based on the analyses presented in this EIS, the Navy prefers an alternative which resumes the
historic, technically sound, and safe practice of conducting refueling and defueling of nuclear-powered
warships and prototypes as planned, transporting naval spent nuclear fuel to the Expended Core Facility at
the INEL for full inspection and examination, and transferring naval spent nuclear fuel to the DOE for
storage at that site. As summarized above, this preferred alternative avoids disruption of research and
development work, minimizes disruption to existing employment levels and infrastructure, represents the
lowest cost, and does not involve appreciable environmental impact. This preferred alternative can be
accommodated under the 1992/1993 Planning Basis, Regionalization, or Centralization at Idaho.
3.10 REFERENCES
CIRRPC (Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination), 1992, Science
Panel Report No. 9, Use of BEIR V and UNSCEAR 1988 in Radiation Risk Assessment: Lifetime
Total Cancer Mortality Risk Estimates at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates for Low-LET
Radiation, Washington, D.C., December.
NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements), 1987, Report No. 95,
Radiation Exposure of the U.S. Population from Consumer Products and Miscellaneous Sources,
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland, December 30.
NNPP (Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program), 1994a, Report NT-94-1, Environmental Monitoring and
Disposal of Radioactive Wastes from U.S. Naval Nuclear Powered Ships and their Support
Facilities, Washington, D.C., March.
NNPP (Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program), 1994b, Report NT-94-2, Occupa-
tional Radiation
Exposure from U.S. Naval Nuclear Plants and Their Support Facilities, Washington, D.C.,
March.
NNPP (Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program), 1994c, Report NT-94-3, Occupational Radiation
Exposure from Naval Reactors' Department of Energy Facilities, Washington, D.C., March.
NSC (National Safety Council), 1993, Accident Facts, 1993 Edition, Itasca, Illinois.
4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
4.1 NAVY AND PROTOTYPE SITES FOR NAVAL SPENT NUCLEAR
FUEL
4.1.1 PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD: BREMERTON,
WASHINGTON
4.1.1.1 Overview
The Puget Sound region lies in the northwest corner of Washington State as shown on Figure
4.1.1-1. The region is defined by the Olympic Mountain Range to the west and the Cascade
Mountain Range to the east. The lowlands contrast dramatically with the moun-
tains, with numerous channels, bays, and inlets on the inland sea that is Puget Sound. The Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard is located inside the city limits of Bremerton, Washington at 47y 33' 30" north latitude
and 122y 38' 8" west longitude. Bremerton is located in Kitsap County on the Sinclair Inlet 14 miles across
Puget Sound west of Seattle and about 20 air miles northwest of Tacoma. Topography in the Bremerton
area is characterized by rolling hills with an elevation range from sea level to +200 feet above mean
sea level (msl) in West Bremerton and ranging up to y300 feet above msl in East Bremerton (area
east of Port Washington Narrows). The predominant native vegetation in the area are douglas fir,
cedar, and hemlock. Within a distance of 25 to 40 miles in a westerly direction from Bremerton, the
Olympic Mountains rise to elevations of 4,000 to 7,000 feet. The higher peaks are cov-
ered with snow most of the year and there are several glaciers on Mount Olympus (elevation 7,954 feet). In an
easterly direction and within a distance of 60 miles, the Cascade Range rises to average elevations of
5,000 to 7,000 feet with snowcapped peaks in excess of 10,000 feet.
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is the largest activity of the Bremerton Naval Complex, which
also includes the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Puget Sound and Naval Sea Systems Command
Detachment, and Planning and Engineering for Repair/Alteration of Aircraft Carriers. Tenant
activities include Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, Naval Reserve Center, and the Defense
Printing Service. Figure 4.1.1-2 provides a shipyard vicinity map, and Figure 4.1.1-3 illustrates the
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
4.1.1.2 Land Use
Kitsap County has historically been a semi-rural county. Roughly 80 to 85 percent of Kitsap
County's total area is either forest, farmland, or undeveloped. The city of Bremerton and the
surrounding vicinity is the largest population and economic center in the county and therefore has a
lower percentage of agriculture and undeveloped land. Most development in Kitsap County is
clustered around the commercial nodes of Bremerton, Port Orchard, Bainbridge Island, Kingston,
Poulsbo, Silverdale, and Gorst, and near the shorelines.
The second largest land use category is residential, which is further broken down into low and
medium density housing. More land area is devoted to single-family (low density) residential than to
multi-family (medium density) development in this area.
Other land use delineations are parks and open space; commercial, which includes industry;
mining; and much of the Navy buildings. The nearby land uses are typical of an area developed to a
moderate intensity. The area contains residential, commercial, industrial, educational, and
recreational facilities. The local waters support recreational and commercial activities including
regularly scheduled ferry traffic.
Bremerton Naval Complex includes a total of approximately 1,347 acres consisting of uplands
and submerged lands. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard has 327 acres of upland and is highly developed.
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard also owns about 338 acres of submerged tidelands. The waterfront dry
dock area is the high-security portion of the shipyard where most production takes place. It includes
production shops, administration, and some public works and supply functions. The upland area of
the shipyard is the military support area which provides services to military personnel, including
housing, retail goods and services, recreation, counseling, dental care, and other support services.
The industrial support area in the southwestern portion of the shipyard includes several piers for
homeported ships and inactive fleet, the power plant, warehouses, steel yard, public works shops, and parking.
Bremerton is the largest city within Kitsap County. The major population centers in Kitsap
County other than Bremerton include Port Orchard, Poulsbo, Silverdale, Bainbridge Island, and
Kingston. Kitsap County also has two reservations: the Port Madison Indian Reservation governed
by the Suquamish Tribe, and the Port Gamble Indian Reservation governed by the S'Klallam Tribe.
The region surrounding the shipyard, within 50 miles, contains a population of approximately
3 million. Figure 4.1.1-4 provides a population distribution rose centered on the shipyard and
covering a 50-mile radius. During 1989, Kitsap County ranked 7th as the most populous county in
the state (Washington SESD 1990). According to the 1990 census, Kitsap County was the fifth fastest
growing county in the state with a 28.9% growth rate for the decade for a total population of
189,731. The most recent estimate (April 1992), puts Kitsap's population at 205,600. The Kitsap
Regional Planning Council projects the number of inhabitants to reach 280,985 by the year 2010, an
increase of 48.10% over the 1990 figure.
Kitsap County's economy is largely affected by the federal government. Government is
Kitsap County's largest employment sector, with the federal government having the greatest impact.
As of 1993, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard was the largest employer in the county, employing about
10,200 civilian personnel. In 1990, the government sector's share of county employment was
approximately 45 percent. The retail trade and services sectors are the county's next highest
employers. Many of the service industries, such as the growing number of engineering and
management firms, directly or indirectly support the military. By 1989, the services sector accounted
for 21 percent of employment in the county and the retail trade sector accounted for 20.5 percent
(Navy 1991a).
The majority of the labor force that would be employed at the shipyard for construction and
operation of the naval spent nuclear fuel area would be expected to reside within about 20 miles from
the shipyard. The calculated total population, labor force, and employment within this region for the
base year (1995) are presented in Table 4.1.1-1. Projections of employment and population for the
years beyond 1995 have not been presented because, as discussed in Section 5, the number of
additional jobs that might be created at the shipyard under any alternative could be small.
Table 4.1.1-1. Regional employment factors at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
Regional Employment Regional Labor Force Regional Population
492,900 527,000 979,070
There are seven port districts in the county. The Port of Bremerton is the largest, with
Bremerton and Port Orchard within its boundaries. The Port of Bremerton owns Bremerton National
Airport, Olympic View Industrial Park, marinas in downtown Bremerton and Port Orchard, and the
First Street Dock in Bremerton. Kitsap County is governed by a Board of Commissioners and is
divided into three districts. Bremerton is split between the three districts. Regional planning is the
responsibility of the Kitsap Regional Planning Council, and the Puget Sound Regional Planning
Council, which is made up of elected officials from King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties and
cities, and from the Indian tribal councils. Land use outside the shipyard is regulated by the city of
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Bremerton Area Council of
Neighborhoods is made up of nine neighborhoods. The group was established to encour-
age citizen participation in Bremerton city planning (Navy 1991a).
Agencies responsible for environmental protection are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Washington State Department of Ecology and the city of Bremerton
are responsible for the Coastal Zone Management Plan. The Department of Natural Resources has
jurisdiction over marine lands management, and the Department of Fisheries and Department of Game
protect wildlife resources. Washington's system of freeways, highways, and ferries is the
responsibility of the Washington State Department of Transportation. Historic preservation programs
for the state are administered by the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preserva-
tion.
Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations," requires federal agencies to identify and address, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their
programs and activities on minority and low-income populations. An adverse environmental impact is
a deleterious environmental impact determined to be unacceptable or above generally accepted norms.
A disproportionately high impact refers to an impact (or risk of an impact) in a low-income or
minority community that significantly exceeds that on the larger community. Data available from the
U. S. Census of 1990 have been used to develop information on the locations of minority and low-
income populations within approximately 50 miles of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, consistent with
the population data provided in Figure 4.1.1-4.
Figure 4.1.1-4. 50-mile population distribution around Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Figure 4.1.1-5 shows the locations of populations in which minority membership exceeds the
average within the 50-mile radius by more than 20 percentage points and populations which have
more than 50 percent minority members. These populations have been identified following an
approach developed by the Environmental Protection Agency which, for purposes of environmental
justice evaluation, defines minority communities as those which have percentages of minorities greater
than the average in the region analyzed (EPA 1994).
Figure 4.1.1-6 shows the locations of populations which have more than 25 percent of their
members living in poverty, reflecting a common definition of low-income communities (EPA 1993).
The U. S. Census Bureau characterizes persons in poverty as those whose income is less than a
"statistical poverty threshold." For the 1990 census, this threshold was based on a 1989 income of
$12,500 per household.
4.1.1.4 Cultural Resources
Until the mid 1880s, Kitsap County was inhabited by several Native American tribes of the
Salish language group who lived on the shores of Puget Sound. For about 100 years, the principal
settlement of the Suquamish Tribe lay along the west shore of Agate Passage.
Congressional funding in 1891 led to the purchase of 190 acres of land on Sinclair Inlet for
the construction of a dry dock, repair, and overhaul base for the U.S. Navy. This base was called
the Puget Sound Naval Station.
No prehistoric archaeological sites have been identified at the Puget Sound Naval Ship-
yard. In addition, no submerged cultural resources have been recorded in the immediate vicinity of the
shipyard. There are no Native American properties or ceremonial sites in the areas where spent
nuclear fuel would be stored.
There is one National Historic Landmark and four National Registered Historic Districts
within the shipyard. The east industrial portion of the shipyard was designated as a National Historic
Landmark in 1992 as a part of the "World War II in the Pacific" group and contains buildings, piers,
dry docks, and equipment that were used in World War II warship repairs. The four Historic
Figure 4.1.1-5. Minority population distribution within 50 miles of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
Figure 4.1.1-6. Low-income population distribution within 50 miles of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
Districts are: Officer's Row, Old Puget Sound Radio Station, Old Naval Hospital, and the Old
Marine Reservation.
4.1.1.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources
The Puget Sound region offers a striking contrast in terrain, with mountains; low, rolling
hills; flat-topped ridges; and plateaus. These areas are separated by numerous channels, bays, inlets,
lakes, and valleys. The shoreline along the county is characterized by moderate to steep irregular
cliffs. The county has large areas of farmlands and forest.
The city of Bremerton and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard are urbanized areas. The
shipyard has an industrialized character along the shoreline, with parking areas, dry docks,
warehouses, and ship traffic along Sinclair Inlet. The upland section of the shipyard contains
housing, recreational facilities, and retail businesses. Chainlink fences mark the shipyard boundaries.
The area within the shipyard where the naval spent nuclear fuel would be stored has low visual
sensitivity since the area is an industrial site.
4.1.1.6 Geology
4.1.1.6.1 General Geology.
The Kitsap Peninsula consists of several geological phenomena
which have occurred over the past 60 million years. The upper layers of rock are generally underlain
by hard, dense, fine-grained lava with an accumulation of several thousand feet (in most places) of
marine sedimentary rocks above the lava flows. Uplifting of the Cascade and Olympic Mountain
ranges caused the Kitsap Peninsula and other Puget Trough lowlands to become sites of deposition for
sedimentary materials washed down from the surrounding ranges. More recently, glaciation, as well
as erosion, have been responsible for carving the low, hilly, rolling topography of the area
(Navy 1991a). The following geological discussion was obtained from "Site Inspection Report Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard" (URS 1992).
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is within the Puget Sound Lowland between the Olympic
Mountains and the older Cascade Mountains to the east. Before the glaciation which occurred up to
1.7 to 2.2 million years ago, the Puget Sound Lowland probably contained a large river valley
draining to the north and west into what is now the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Glaciation of the Puget
Sound Lowland produced the arms and embayments of Puget Sound.
4.1.1.6.2 Geologic Resources.
Geological materials found in Puget Sound include hard, dense
volcanic rock formed up to 63 to 65 million years ago, and fragmented sedimentary rocks, as well as
unconsolidated sediments deposited by glaciers up to 1.7 to 2.2 million years ago. At least four
separate glacial advances and accompanying periods between glaciers have been hypothesized for the
Puget Sound Lowland. Soil layers deposited by glaciers are generally coarse sand and gravel, sand,
silt from lakes, and low-permeability deposits left by glaciers. The soils from the periods between
glaciers are generally fine-grained silts and sands deposited by rivers or lakes, interbedded with lenses
of sand and gravel.
Most of the geologic material in Kitsap County is glacial deposits. The Kitsap Peninsula is
the remnant of a plain formed from the debris deposited by glaciers. Volcanic bedrock outcrops near
the south end of Sinclair Inlet and at Gold Mountain south and west of Bremerton. Sedimentary
bedrock outcrops on the south end of Bainbridge Island and at the adjacent tip of the peninsula east of
Bremerton.
Kitsap County has four basic soil types: soils underlain by cemented hard-packed subsoil or
bedrock substrate; soils with permeable, distinctly stratified sublayers which are coarse and have good
internal drainage; the organic soils represented by small, widely scattered areas of peat and muck; and
soils having little or no agricultural or building potential. Typical landforms include rough
mountainous land, steep broken land, coastal beaches, and tidal marshes.
The natural topography of the shipyard has been altered substantially from its original
condition. Portions of the upland areas of the complex were cut to fill marshes and create level land.
The resulting fill material was predominantly a silty, gravelly sand with occasional pockets of silts
and clays. The surface of the filled areas is a solid layer of earth. The remaining areas of natural
soils vary from dense deposits from glaciers to soft bay mud and peat. The upland soil is a stiff hard-
packed clay soil with low permeability. (URS 1992)
There are no economic geologic resources at the shipyard.
4.1.1.6.3 Seismic and Volcanic Hazards.
Seismic risk related to structural damage may be
represented in the United States by a relative scale of 0 through 4, with Zone 0 not expected to
encounter damage and Zone 4 expected to encounter the greatest seismic risk. The Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard is located in Zone 3. (UBC 1991) The Uniform Building Code seismic classification
provides a means for a comparable assessment of the seismic hazard between the alternate sites. If
the Record of Decision identifies this site for the interim storage of naval spent fuel, then a detailed
seismic evaluation would be conducted. More detailed information regarding the design basis
considerations for storage of naval spent nuclear fuel at the shipyard is provided in Attachment D.
There have been approximately 200 earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest since 1840, most of
which caused little or no damage. The most recent earthquakes of high magnitude in the region were
near Olympia (approximately 40 miles from Bremerton) in 1949 (moment magnitude 7.1) and near
Seattle in 1965 (moment magnitude 6.5). There has recently been speculation by some seismologists
that earthquakes in the Puget Sound area might produce moment magnitudes as high as 8.2 to 8.8.
On the other hand, some seismologists believe that earthquakes with moment magnitudes exceeding
7.0 are unlikely in this region. There is also some disagreement at present on the nature of fault
movements that might occur in this area.
There is no known fault line within 3000 feet of the Bremerton Naval Complex; however,
two known fault traces have been identified in Kitsap County. The Kingston-Bothell trace, in the
northern portion of the county, and the Seattle-Bremerton trace, located a few miles north of
Bremerton. There has been no known surface faulting in conjunction with earthquakes in the
shipyard region.
Potential hazards from volcanism are minimal and limited to wind-borne volcanic ash. Both
the distance of the shipyard from the Cascade vents and the configuration of the intervening
topography exclude other volcanic hazards. Only ash from a "large" or "very large" eruption would
reach the shipyard. The 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, Washington, approximately 120 miles
south of the shipyard, resulted in a very slight coating of ash at the shipyard.
The potential hazard from large waves generated by volcanoes or earthquakes is minimal.
The system of straits and inlets surrounding Puget Sound provides a natural barrier for the Puget
Sound Area, which effectively dampens the propagation of distantly generated large waves. The risk
of a local large wave generated by seismic events occurring that would affect the shipyard is small;
however, seismologists have found evidence of a large, shallow focus earthquake near Seattle about
1300 years ago. This earthquake was most likely in excess of moment magnitude 7. In the event that
a shallow focus earthquake such as this were to occur beneath Puget Sound, a tsunami could result
which might cause flooding in the Puget Sound area. Because the largest earthquakes of record in the
area are deep seated (more than 60 kilometers (37 miles)), and no major surface rupture is known to
have occurred, the hazard of generation of a large wave by a local earthquake is minimal. The
potential for landslide-generated waves is controlled by the geologic conditions; however,
development of an earthquake-induced landslide of sufficient size to create a large wave is not
expected.
A more detailed description of the regional geology and seismicity is documented in "Seismic
Design Study - Water Pit Facility, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington"
(Navy 1978).
4.1.1.7 Air Resources
4.1.1.7.1 Climate and Meteorology.
The general meteorological conditions of the Puget Sound
area are typical of a marine climate, since the prevailing air currents at all elevations are from the
Pacific Ocean. The relatively cool summers, mild winters, and wetness characteristic of a marine
climate are enhanced by the presence of Puget Sound. The area tends toward damp, cloudy
conditions much of the year. The Cascade Range to the east serves as a partial barrier to the
temperature extremes of the continental climate of eastern Washington.
The normal annual precipitation near Bremerton is 38.33 inches. The rainy season extends
from October to March and accounts for more than 75 percent of the yearly precipitation.
The mean annual temperature is 51.4yF. Normally, January is the month with the lowest
average temperature of 39yF and July is the month with the highest average tempera-
ture of 64.5yF.
The average annual mean wind speed at the Seattle-Tacoma Airport is 9.0 miles per hour
(mph), with a recorded maximum speed of 1-minute duration of 49 mph. Pre-
vailing winds are from
the southwest.
The mean annual relative humidity at the Seattle-Tacoma Airport at 4:00 a.m. (PST) is 83
percent, decreasing to 62 percent by 4:00 p.m. There is an average of 43.4 days per year that fog
reduces visibility to 0.25 mile or less. The mean annual percent of possible sunshine is 46 percent.
The month with the greatest mean percent of possible sunshine is July with 65 percent and the month
with the least is December with 21 percent (Navy 1991a).
4.1.1.7.2 Air Quality.
An area can be designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as
having air quality that is better than defined by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(attainment) or as exceeding one or more of those standards (nonattainment for one or more
pollutants). The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 81, states that the Air Quality Control
Region for the shipyard is better than national standards for total suspended particulate matter and
SO2. The area has no specific classification for ozone, carbon monoxide, and NO2. The nearest
Class I Area is the Olympic National Park, approximately 24 kilometers (15 miles) from the shipyard.
4.1.1.7.3 Existing Radiological Conditions.
Radiological facilities at all naval shipyards are
designed to ensure that there are no uncontrolled discharges of radioactivity in airborne exhausts.
Radiological controls are exercised to preclude exposure of working personnel to airborne radio-
activity exceeding federal limits. Air exhausted from radiological work facilities is passed through
high-efficiency particulate air filters and monitored during discharges. The annual airborne
radioactivity emissions from the shipyards do not result in any measurable radiation exposure to the
general public. Calculations of site radioactive airborne emissions for 1992 have been performed as
described in Attachment F. These calculations have shown that emissions of radionuclides from each
shipyard result in an effective dose equivalent of less than 0.1 mrem per year to any member of the
general public.
4.1.1.8 Water Resources
4.1.1.8.1 Surface Water.
Numerous freshwater sources are found in Kitsap County, with
numerous lakes dotting the county's landscape. Kitsap Lake, in west Bremerton, is one of the largest
at 238 acres. Lakes and reservoirs are used for recreation and other public uses. Water for the city
of Bremerton comes from surface and groundwater supplies.
Freshwaters in the Bremerton area are monitored by the Washington State Department of
Ecology. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard has no important surface freshwaters.
Sinclair Inlet is located in Puget Sound. It is a narrow body of marine water approximately
1.1 miles wide at its widest point and approximately 3.5 miles long. A majority of the shoreline of
Sinclair Inlet has been developed. The dominant feature is the shipyard, lying on the northern shore.
The city of Port Orchard borders the southern shore. Localized areas of Sinclair Inlet contain toxic
chemicals as a result of historic urban and industrial activities. Contaminants of concern include
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH); and toxic metals, such as
chromium and mercury (PTI 1990). Fish taken from these localized areas show elevated
concentrations of PCBs, mercury, and chromium.
Puget Sound tides are of the twice-daily, mixed type with two unequal highs and two unequal
lows per day. Tides in the inlet are similar to those in Seattle, the primary reference station. The
principal forces that produce currents in Sinclair Inlet are tidal. Generally, weak currents oscillate in
direction moving water in and out of the inlet. The flushing capacity of the inlet is low due to low
freshwater input (Navy 1991a).
Based on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) COMMUNITY-PANEL No. 530093 0015 and
topographical maps, the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is not in the 100 or 500 year floodplain.
4.1.1.8.2 Groundwater.
Groundwater is generally found within 100 feet of the ground surface in
sand and gravel layers caused by material from receding glaciers. The rate of groundwater recharge
in Kitsap County is estimated to be approximately 12 inches annually, equating to approximately
0.5 million gallons per day per square mile. The nature of the geology in the area is such that a well
in almost any location can tap a number of aquifers at different depths. The quality of most
groundwater near Bremerton is good. Groundwater is used for approximately 35 percent of the
public water supply for Bremerton. Groundwater at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is poor due to
salinity caused by intrusion from Sinclair Inlet. (Navy 1991a).
4.1.1.8.3 Existing Radiological Conditions.
The normal activities associated with current naval
nuclear operations at all naval shipyards do not result in the intentional discharge of any radioactive
liquid effluent. However, there were occasions, primarily in the early 1960's, when measurable
levels of radioactivity were discharged with liquid effluent. In all cases, effluent releases were less
than permitted under the then current limits imposed by state and federal agencies.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation Programs has
performed monitoring of the water, plant life, aquatic life, and sediment in the vicinity of Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard. The purpose of the survey was to determine if operations related to U.S.
Navy nuclear warship activities resulted in releases of radionuclides which could contribute to
significant population exposure or contamination of the environment. "Radiological Surveys of Naval
Facilities on Puget Sound" (Lloyd and Blanchard 1989) discusses the most recent Environmental
Protection Agency monitoring data. Pertinent conclusions are as follows:
1. "A trace amount of cobalt-60 (0.04 pCi/g+/-0.01 pCi/g) was detected in one sediment
sample at PSNS. All other radioactivity detected in the 80 sediment samples is attributed
to naturally occurring radionuclides or fallout from past nuclear weapons tests and the
Chernobyl reactor accident in 1986."
2. "Results of core sampling did not indicate any previous deposit of cobalt-60 in the
sediment."
3. "Water samples contained no detectable levels of radioactivity other than those occur-
ring naturally."
4. "External gamma-ray measurements did not detect any increased radiation exposure to
the public above natural background levels."
5. "Based on the current radiological surveys, shipyard and nuclear-powered warship
operations have resulted in no increases in radioactivity that would result in major
population exposure or contamination of the environment."
Environmental monitoring is conducted by the shipyard. The results of this monitoring
program corroborate the Environmental Protection Agency's conclusions.
4.1.1.9 Ecological Resources
4.1.1.9.1 Terrestrial Ecology.
Vegetation and wildlife on Puget Sound Naval Shipyard are
limited to "open spaces," noncontiguous, undeveloped areas which comprise approximately 46 acres
of the entire Bremerton Naval Complex (Navy 1991a). Most of these areas have been previously
disturbed and are currently landscaped with native and ornamental trees and shrubs.
Tree species include Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), vine maple (Acer circinatum), big
leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), and
western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). There are various types of thick underbrush present such as
salal (Gaultheria shallon), sword fern (Polystichum sp.), Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa), and
rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.) (Navy 1986).
Because of its location on the Pacific flyway, Puget Sound exhibits a diverse avifauana from
an influx of seasonal migrants. Many of the migrants, particularly waterfowl, remain and overwinter
in the sound because of the mild climate, abundance of bays and coves, and the availability of food.
Due to the extensive industrial nature of the shipyard, its resident bird community is characterized by
"urban species." Resident bird species include Stellar's jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), starling (Sturnus
vulgaris), flicker (Colaptes spp.), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), black-capped chickadee
(Parus atricapillus), goldfinch (Spinus tristis), pigeon (Columba fasciata), robin (Turdus migratorius),
golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), evening grosbeak (Hesperiphona vespertina), and
ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) (Navy 1986). In addition, numerous glaucous-winged
gulls (Larus glaucescens) inhabit the waterfront areas.
Although abundant mammal populations originally existed in the Puget Sound area, the
current populations of mammals at the shipyard are extremely limited. The only mammals currently
reported at the shipyard are gray squirrels (Sciurus griseus), mice, and shrews (Navy 1990a).
With few exceptions, reptiles and amphibians are not particularly abundant in the Puget Sound
area. The lack of suitable habitat restricts the population of reptiles and amphibians at the shipyard to
garter snakes, salamanders, newts, and frogs (Navy 1990a).
No environmental concerns associated with vegetation or wildlife have been identified at the
shipyard.
4.1.1.9.2 Wetlands.
There are no freshwater wetlands on the shipyard. There are no streams,
rivers, ponds, or lakes located on the shipyard (Navy 1986). The majority of the shipyard is
developed and covered with an impervious surface. The shipyard does own 338 acres of water area
(deep-water tidal property) along the waterfront.
4.1.1.9.3 Aquatic Ecology.
Salt marsh and brackish marsh communities formerly existed along
much of the shoreline of Puget Sound. For a number of years, these areas were perceived as swampy
wastelands and thousands of acres were diked, drained, and reclaimed.
The original landform of the shipyard has been greatly altered to accommodate its continuing
development. Projects have increased the usable land by filling in the marsh area in the northwest
corner and by extending the shoreline with quaywalls and landfill. The shoreside of the shipyard
consists primarily of riprap, concrete bulkheads, and old wooden piers. Marine vegetation along the
shipyard shoreline consists primarily of sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca), rockweed (Fuchus distichus), and
debris of algae that have been dislodged from their subtidal moorings and carried inshore. There are
no waterfront areas at the shipyard that have clam beds, eelgrass, kelp beds, or similar habitat
(Navy 1986).
Resident fish populations inhabiting the shipyard intertidal shoreline include sculpins
(Cottidae), surf perch (Embiotocidae), and flatfish (Pleuronectidae). Migratory fish species include
Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), sea-run cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), Pacific tomcod
(Microgadus proximus), Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), Pacific herring (Clupea harengus
pallasii), rockfish (Sebastes spp.), and two or three species of migratory smelt (Osmeridae)
(Navy 1986). There is near-shore migration of juvenile salmon and other fish species annually, from
March 15 to June 15. Herring mill in the vicinity of the shipyard from January 20 through April 15
(Navy 1991a). No recreational or commercial fishing is allowed within the confines of the shipyard.
4.1.1.9.4 Endangered and Threatened Species.
As required under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, the responsible agency of a major federal action must conduct a biological
assessment to identify any endangered or threatened species which are likely to be affected by such
action. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service had previously provided a list of endangered and
threatened species that may be in the Bremerton area (Navy 1991a). The list included one species,
the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Wintering bald eagles may occur in the Bremerton area
from about October 31 through March 31.
Bald eagles are regularly seen along most of the inland waters of Puget Sound. Eagles are
active during the day and feed on a variety of animals (preferring fish or waterfowl) and carrion.
They nest and rest most often in conifers, choosing large, open-crowned trees near water
(Navy 1991a). Eagles are capable of tolerating a certain amount of intrusion and change; however,
they tend to seek privacy for rearing their young.
Although no eagles have been reported nesting on the shipyard, there are several active nests
within 1 mile of the shipyard (Navy 1991a). Trees suitable for perching and roosting are found in the
non-industrialized area at the shipyard, but not near the waterfront. Bald eagles may feed within
Sinclair Inlet anywhere and at any time. It is not likely that eagles feed on fish near the shipyard on
a regular basis because of the high level of human activity and the variability of fish populations.
Eagles in this area feed primarily on seagulls and other birds (Navy 1991a).
Marine mammals are afforded full federal protection under the Marine Mammal Protec-
tion
Act of 1972. Pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) and cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) that
regularly or occasionally are found in central Puget Sound include the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), killer whale (Ordinus orca), Dall porpoise
(Phocoenoides dalli), and harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) (Navy 1991a).
The National Marine Fisheries Service had previously provided a list of endangered and/or
threatened species under its jurisdiction that may occur in Puget Sound waters in support of the "Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Fast Combat Support Ship (AOE-6 Class) U.S. West
Coast Homeporting Program" (Navy 1991a). The list included two endangered mammals, the gray
whale (Eschrichtius robustus) and the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae); one threatened
mammal, the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus); and one endangered turtle, the leatherback sea
turtle (Dermochelys coriacea).
None of the sensitive, threatened, or endangered species are represented in the aquatic life of
the shipyard (Navy 1991a).
4.1.1.10 Noise
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is an existing industrial-type environment characterized by noise
from truck and auto traffic; ship loading cranes and related diesel-powered equipment; and
continuously operating transmission lines for steam, fuel, water, and related compressors for those
and other liquids. In addition, new construction of buildings, reconstruction and rehabilitation
activities for streets, buildings, parking lots, and ships all contribute to an industrial environment.
Primary noise sources are located along the naval shore support facilities (piers and associated
land-side facilities) and are dampened to the residential areas by the hills adjacent to the industrial
area.
4.1.1.11 Traffic and Transportation
Primary regional land access to the Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton area is achieved via two
interstate highways, I-90 and I-5.
Major transportation corridors in Kitsap County are based upon a
network of state routes. The county's municipalities and population centers are accessed by State
Routes (SR) 104, 303, 304, 305, and 308. The major thoroughfare in south Kitsap County is SR 16,
which runs south from Bremerton to Tacoma and connects with I-5 in Tacoma.
Bremerton's primary access routes include SR 3, which is a major north-south thoroughfare
that travels through western Bremerton; SR 303, which originates within Bremerton as Warren
Avenue and continues through eastern Bremerton to Silverdale; SR 304, which travels through
Bremerton as Callow Avenue, Burwell Street, and Washington Avenue; Kitsap Way, which turns into
6th Street within the city; 11th Street, which provides local east-west circulation; and Wycoff,
Montgomery, and Naval avenues, which provide local north-south circulation. The proposed Gorst to
Bremerton Connector is a road-widening project that will improve accessibility to downtown
Bremerton from SR 3 and SR 16.
Kitsap Transit provides transportation service to various areas of Kitsap County including
population centers, ferry docks, and other activity centers, through a Public Transit Benefit Authority.
In addition, tours and charters are available locally through Cascade Trailways which also offers a
twice daily scheduled run to Tacoma. Taxi service is also available throughout the Kitsap County
area.
Bremerton National Airport, used for general aviation, is the largest of three airfields located
in Kitsap County and is located near SR 3 south of Bremerton. The other two airfields in the county
are Port Orchard Airport and Apex Airpark near Silverdale.
Two ferry systems provide services to the Bremerton area. The Washington State Ferry
System provides numerous daily runs from Bremerton, Kingston, Bainbridge Island, and Southworth
to the Seattle area. There is also a state ferry run in the northern part of the county connecting
Kingston to Edmonds, Washington, north of Seattle. In addition to the cross sound service provided
by the Washington State Ferry System, Horluck Transportation Company runs a passenger-only
service connecting downtown Port Orchard to Bremerton.
Burlington Northern Railroad provides scheduled and on-demand freight rail service to a
number of locations in the southern and central portions of Kitsap County. A Navy-owned spur line
from Shelton, Washington, provides additional rail service to the shipyard and Bangor Naval
Submarine Base.
Naval spent nuclear fuel has been removed from Navy nuclear-powered ships and transported
to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Expended Core Facility (ECF) for examination and
evaluation as a routine part of their operating cycle. Starting in 1962, the naval spent nuclear fuel
originating at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard was transported by ocean vessel to Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard for subsequent rail shipment to ECF. From 1962 to the present, a total of 20 naval spent
nuclear fuel shipments have been made from Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard to Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard, then on to ECF. In 1966, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard began removing naval spent
nuclear fuel from Navy nuclear-powered ships and transporting it by rail to ECF. From 1966 to the
present, a total of 115 shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel originating at Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard have been made to ECF. Attachment A provides a list of the spent nuclear fuel shipments
made to date by year and by originating shipyard. Attachment A also contains detailed descriptions
of the shipping containers used for naval spent nuclear fuel shipments from shipyards.
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard has 23 miles of railroad tracks, 8 piers, 4 mooring sites, and 6
large dry docks.
4.1.1.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety
4.1.1.12.1 Occupational Radiological Health and Safety. The Navy has well established and
effective Occupational Safety, Health, and Occupational Medicine programs at all of its shipyards. In
regard to radiological aspects of these programs, the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program policy is to
reduce to as low as reasonably achievable the external exposure to personnel from ionizing radiation
associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants. These stringent controls on minimizing occupational
radiation exposure have been successful. No civilian or military personnel at Navy sites have ever
exceeded the federal accumulated radiation exposure limit which allows 5 rem exposure for each year
of age beyond age 18. Since 1967, no person has exceeded the federal limit which allows up to
3 rem per quarter year and since 1980, no one has received more than 2 rem per year from radiation
associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants. The average occupational exposure of each person
monitored at all shipyards is 0.26 rem per year. The average lifetime accumulated radiation exposure
from radiation associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants for all shipyard personnel who were
monitored is 1.2 rem. (NNPP 1994a) This corresponds to the likelihood of a cancer fatality of 1 in
2083.
The Navy's policy on occupational exposure from internal radioactivity is to prevent radiation
exposure to personnel from internal radioactivity. The limits invoked to achieve this objective are
one-tenth of the levels allowed by federal regulations for radiation workers. As a result of this
policy, no civilian or military personnel at shipyards have ever received more than one-tenth the
federal annual occupational exposure limit from internal radiation exposure caused by radioactivity
associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants.
For work operations involving the potential for spreading radioactive contamination, contain-
ments are used to prevent personnel contamination or generation of airborne radioactivity. The
controls for contamination are so strict that precautions sometimes have had to be taken to prevent
tracking contamination from fallout and natural sources into radiological areas because the contamina-
tion control limits used in these areas were well below the levels of fallout and natural contamination
occurring outside in the general public areas. A basic requirement of contamination control is
monitoring all personnel leaving any area where radioactive contamination could possibly occur.
Workers are trained to survey themselves (i.e., frisk), and their performance is checked by
radiological control personnel. Frisking of the entire body is required, normally using sensitive hand-
held survey instruments. Major work facilities are equipped with portable monitors, which are used
in lieu of hand-held friskers. These stringent controls to protect the workers and the public from
contamination have proven effective in the past.
In 1991, researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, completed a very
comprehensive epidemiological study of the health of workers at the six naval shipyards and two
private shipyards that service the Navy's nuclear-powered ships (Matanoski 1991). This independent
study evaluated a population of 70,730 civilian workers over a period from 1957, beginning with the
first overhaul of the first nuclear-powered submarine, USS NAUTILUS, through 1981, to determine
whether there was an excess risk of leukemia or other cancers associated with exposure to low levels
of gamma radiation.
The Johns Hopkins study found no evidence to conclude that the health of people involved in
work on U.S. naval nuclear-powered ships has been adversely affected by exposure to low levels of
radiation incidental to this work. Additional studies are planned to investigate the observations and
update the shipyard study with data beyond 1981.
The radiation exposure during normal operations at each shipyard for workers who have their
radiation levels monitored is determined based on the annual radiation exposure of 0.26 mrem per
worker for all shipyards based on Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program Report NT-94-2 (NNPP 1994a).
The total number of shipyard personnel monitored for radiation exposure associated with the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program has been about 164,000.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. The radiation exposure to
transportation workers for all historical shipments is 16.6 person-rem, which statistically corresponds
to 0.0066 cancer fatalities. The maximum exposed individual (MEI) is a transportation worker, since
the workers are closer to the shipment for a longer time than any member of the general population.
Under the limiting assumption that the same worker is associated with every shipment for the entire
historical period, this person would receive a total exposure of 7.5 rem over the approximately
40-year period, or about 0.19 rem per year, which is within DOE standards for occupationally
exposed individuals. The radiation exposures to workers correspond to much less than one incident
cancer, which means that it is unlikely that there have been any past health impacts due to all
historical shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such shipments.
4.1.1.12.2 Occupational Non-radiological Health and Safety.
The shipyard has an
occupational health/preventive medicine unit and a branch clinic (industrial dispensary) which are run
by Naval Hospital Bremerton. Personnel may also be taken to Harrison Memorial Hospital as
needed.
The shipyard maintains two fire stations with approximately 50 personnel. The shipyard has a
fire department that is fully equipped for structural and industrial firefighting and hazardous material
spill response.
The shipyard has a security force of approximately 177 personnel providing law enforcement
services, emergency services, security clearances, and parking and traffic control for the Bremerton
Naval Complex.
In the non-radiological Occupational Safety, Health, and Occupational Medicine area, the
Navy complies with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. The Navy policy
is to maintain a safe and healthful work environment at all naval facilities. Due to the varied nature
of work at these facilities, there is a potential for certain employees to be exposed to physical and
chemical hazards. These employees are routinely monitored during work and receive medical
surveillance for physical hazards such as exposure to high noise levels or heat stress. In addition,
employees are monitored for their exposure to chemical hazards such as organic solvents, lead,
asbestos, etc., and where appropriate are placed into medical surveil-
lance programs for these chemical
hazards.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. Approximately 0.028 fatalities are
estimated as a result of non-radiological sources (vehicle emissions) associated with all historical
shipments of spent nuclear fuel. This number includes both the workers and the general public.
Since this number is much less than one, it is unlikely that there has been any non-radiological health
impact due to the historical shipment of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such
shipments.
4.1.1.12.3 Public Radiological Health and Safety.
In order to quantify the exposures resulting
from normal shipyard radiological releases to the general public, detailed analyses were performed
based on very conservative estimates of radioisotopic releases since releases began. Attachment F
provides detailed annual release values used in the analyses.
The GENII computer code (Napier et al. 1988) was used to calculate exposures to human
beings due to the estimated radionuclide releases from normal operations at the shipyards.
A person on the shipyard boundary at the location where the largest exposures would be
received was used as the hypothetical maximally exposed off-site individual (MOI) for postulated
releases of radioactive material from stored fuel. The population data used to calculate population
exposures were taken from 1990 census data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Meteorology data
were obtained as described in Attachment F.
The hypothetical exposures calculated in Attachment F for the period 1995 through 2035 were
adjusted from an annual basis (1995) to the historical basis by multiplying by 38 years and by a factor
of 1.7 to take into consideration variations in the number of ships and operations.
The calculated accumulated exposures through 1995 to the general population within 50 miles
of the site (about 3 million people) are 1.3 person-rem. To provide perspective, the exposures
received due to natural radiation sources through 1995 are approximately 34 million person-rem,
based on 0.3 rem per person per year.
The results of environmental monitoring as described in Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program
Report NT-94-1 show that Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program activities had no distinguishable effect
on normal background radiation levels at site perimeters (NNPP 1994b).
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. The radiation exposure to the
general population for all historical shipments is 1.95 person-rem, which statistically corresponds to
0.00098 cancer fatalities.
All of the radiation exposures to the general population correspond to much less than one
incident cancer, which means that it is unlikely that there has been any past health impact to the
public due to all historical shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such
shipments.
4.1.1.12.4 Public Non-radiological Health and Safety.
Kitsap County has two hospitals,
Harrison Memorial Hospital in East Bremerton and the Naval Hospital Bremerton.
Fire protection in Kitsap County is administered by local fire departments and fire districts.
The Bremerton Fire Department has three stations. Police protection services in Kitsap County are
provided by the County Sheriff's Office, the city of Bremerton, and other local jurisdictions providing
mutual aid.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. Approximately 0.028 fatalities are
estimated as a result of non-radiological sources (vehicle emissions) associated with all historical
shipments of spent nuclear fuel. This number includes both the workers and the general public.
Since this number is much less than one, it is unlikely that there has been any non-radiological health
impact to the public due to all historical shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history
of such shipments.
4.1.1.13 Utilities and Energy
Public water systems supply the majority of Kitsap County's water requirements.
Wells are
the primary source of water for outlying areas. The Bremerton watershed, located in the Gold
Mountain area, is the largest single source for the city of Bremerton. A dam on the Union River
provides the water storage reservoir. Freshwater is received at the shipyard from the city of
Bremerton public water supply. A saltwater system is used at the piers and dry docks for
firefighting, flushing, and cooling of ship systems. Refer to Section 4.1.1.8 for further discussion of
water resources.
The Bonneville Power Administration and the Puget Sound Power and Light Company
provide electrical service to Kitsap County. Rates for electrical power are relatively low due to the
close proximity of hydroelectric facilities. The shipyard steam plant provides emergency electrical
service, as well as steam.
A limited industrial natural gas distribution system exists in the east end of the complex. A
majority of the military support area in the west end of the shipyard has been converted to natural
gas. Natural gas is used industrially, since most of the buildings are heated by steam. The forge
shop, foundry, and pipe shops are the largest users of gas. The only natural gas space heating in the
industrial area is in the foundry (Navy 1991a).
Shipyard freshwater usage is approximately 676 million gallons annually.
Electricity usage is about 247,000 megawatt hours annually.
4.1.1.14 Materials and Waste Management
All of Bremerton's sewage is treated by the Bremerton Wastewater Utility at the Charleston
Water Treatment Plant, located at the intersection of State Routes 3 and 304.
This plant was
completed in 1985 to provide secondary treatment. Navy ships produce sewage which is transferred
to the city of Bremerton's Water Treatment Plant. Berthed ships generally have on-board pumps to
discharge their sewage into the piers' sewage lines. In some cases, portable pumps are utilized to lift
and pressurize.
Most of the solid waste produced by the shipyard is hauled by a private contractor to the
privately owned Olympic View landfill. Miscellaneous acid and alkaline cleaning solution
(concentrated liquid) is collected, stored on base, and eventually shipped to hazardous waste treatment
storage and disposal facilities. Solid and liquid chemical wastes are collected, characterized,
packaged, and labeled at the shipyard, then turned over to a contractor for disposal. A facility at the
Manchester Fuel Department provides for the collection and recycling of oily wastes, sludges, and
bilge waters (Navy 1991a).
Solid radioactive waste materials are packaged in strong, tight containers, shielded as
necessary, and shipped to burial sites licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or a State
under agreement with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Shipyards and other shore facilities
are not permitted to dispose of radioactive solid wastes by burial on their own sites. During 1992,
approximately 851 cubic yards of routine low-level radioactive waste containing 59 curies were
shipped from the shipyard for burial.
Waste which is both radioactive and chemically hazardous is regulated under both the Atomic
Energy Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as "mixed waste." Within the
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, concerted efforts are taken to avoid commingling radioactive and
chemically hazardous substances so as to minimize the potential for generation of mixed waste. For
example, these efforts include avoiding the use of acetone solvents, lead-based paints, lead shielding
in disposal containers, and chemical paint removers. Radioactive wastes, including those containing
chemically hazardous substances, are handled in accordance with long-standing Program radiological
requirements. Such handling includes solidification to immobilize the radioactivity, separation of the
radioactive and chemically hazardous substances, removal of liquids from solids, and other simple
techniques. A determination is then made as to whether the resulting waste is hazardous. As a result
of Program efforts to avoid the use of chemically hazardous substances in radiological work, Program
activities typically generate only a few hundred cubic feet of mixed waste each year. This small
amount of mixed waste, along with limited amounts of mixed waste from Program work conducted
prior to 1987, will be stored pending the licensing of commercial treatment and disposal facilities.
Since the complex contains so much pavement, surface drainage is required. An extensive
storm sewer system exists, which is separate from the sanitary sewer system. The storm sewer
discharges runoff into Sinclair Inlet through 15 outfalls (Navy 1991a).
4.1.2 NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD: PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA
4.1.2.1 Overview
Norfolk Naval Shipyard is located in the Tidewater region of Virginia as shown on Figure
4.1.2-1. The shipyard is contiguous with the city of Portsmouth at 36y 49' 5" north latitude and 76y
17' 38" west longitude. The shipyard consists of over 1,200 acres and includes over 500 administra-
tive, industrial, and support structures and 4 miles of shoreline. Figure 4.1.2-2 provides a vicinity
map, and Figure 4.1.2-3 provides the site map for the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. For information,
Figures 4.1.2-4 and 4.1.2-5 show the location and vicinity of Newport News Shipbuilding. Six city
areas are within 15 miles of the shipyard: Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Norfolk, Virginia Beach,
Hampton and Newport News, and Suffolk. The cities of Portsmouth to the immediate west,
Chesapeake to the south, and Norfolk to the north and east surround the shipyard. The land area of
Norfolk is separated from the shipyard proper by the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River to the
east and by the confluence of the Southern, Eastern, and Western Branches of the Elizabeth River to
the north.
4.1.2.2 Land Use
Over 95 percent of the land area within the boundaries of the shipyard is covered by
structures or paved with concrete and asphalt. The shipyard is divided internally into a controlled
industrial area and a non-industrial area. All of the piers, dry docks, and work facilities accomplish-
ing naval nuclear propulsion plant work are within the controlled industrial area.
The surrounding six city areas are a mix of urban, suburban, light industrial, and rural areas
with the land areas dissected by the numerous rivers, creeks, bays, and wetlands.
Portsmouth is predominantly urban and suburban. The two main industries are the shipyard
and the Portsmouth Marine Terminals, which are cargo shipping terminals operated by Virginia
International Terminals. There are few undeveloped tracts of land in Portsmouth.
Figure 4.1.2-1. Location of Norfolk Naval Shipyard within Virginia. Figure 4.1.2-2. Norfolk Naval Shipyard vicinity map. Figure 4.1.2-3. Norfolk Naval Shipyard site map. Figure 4.1.2-4. Location of Newport News Shipbuilding within Virginia. Figure 4.1.2-5. Newport News Shipbuilding vicinity map. Norfolk is north and east of the shipyard and separated from the Portsmouth land mass by the
Elizabeth River. Downtown Norfolk is about 2.5 miles north-northeast of the shipyard and is the
financial, cultural, and educational hub of the Southside area. Norfolk is primarily urban and
suburban with light industrial centers scattered throughout the city. The Norfolk waterfront has
commercial shipyards, coal terminals, various piers for bulk cargo such as gypsum and phosphate,
and the Norfolk Naval Base. Like Portsmouth, Norfolk has few undeveloped tracts of land.
The Chesapeake corporate limit adjoins the Norfolk corporate limit just south of the
St. Helena Annex and the Portsmouth corporate limit mid-stream of the Southern Branch of the
Elizabeth River due east of the shipyard. The majority of the shipyard industrial area is across the
river from Chesapeake. The land area immediately along the riverfront is industrial, bulk cargo
terminals, and manufacturing. Chesapeake is a mixture of suburban and rural areas. The Western
Branch Area adjoins Portsmouth and is primarily suburban with large tracts of undeveloped land
currently used for crops to the south and west. Greenbriar adjoins Norfolk and is the central
commercial hub of Chesapeake. Great Bridge adjoins Virginia Beach and is primarily residential with
commercial corridors and regional shopping areas. The southern part of Chesapeake partially
contains the Great Dismal Swamp and is rural with isolated residential areas scattered throughout the
region.
Virginia Beach is not contiguous with any shipyard property but is within 15 miles. Virginia
Beach adjoins Norfolk and Chesapeake on their eastern borders and fronts the Atlantic Ocean from
Cape Henry to the North Carolina state line. The area between the ocean front resort strip and the
Norfolk city line has undergone explosive growth over the past 20 years. The area is primarily
residential with several commercial corridors connecting various parts of the city. A so-called "Green
Line" divides the southern agricultural rural area from the developed areas in the northern part of
Virginia Beach. This line has moved south in steps over the years in response to increasing pressure
for further development.
Hampton and Newport News are adjoining cities lying on a peninsula formed by the James
and York rivers. Newport News Shipbuilding and port facilities for coal and containerized cargo are
the major industries. Although within 15 miles, the peninsula cities have historically been isolated
from the southside cities economically and demographically as well as politically. This is slowly
changing with the opening of the bridge-tunnel connecting western Tidewater with the peninsula.
Inclusion of the peninsula cities into the Regional Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area joined the
regions demographically. Land use is primarily suburban with several major commercial corridors
dissecting and connecting the two cities. A downtown area of Newport News sits at the tip of the
peninsula separated from the James River waterfront by coal terminals and the Newport News
Shipbuilding facilities. The limited agricultural land is being rapidly supplanted by expanding
residential and commercial development.
Suffolk is the westernmost of the southside cities. Suffolk is predominantly rural and has
substantial land area under cultivation with peanuts, soybeans, and produce vegetables being the major
crops. Residential areas are scattered but are becoming more numerous as land in Portsmouth and the
Western Branch Area of Chesapeake is developed.
4.1.2.3 Socioeconomics
The shipyard is centrally located in relation to the six city population centers that comprise the
Tidewater region. At the time of the 1990 census, approximately 1.5 million persons resided within a
50-mile radius of the shipyard. The six-city metropolitan area houses most of this population. Figure
4.1.2-6 provides a population distribution rose showing the population density and population for
principal centers within 50 miles of the shipyard. Population data are based on the 1990 census.
As of 1993, Norfolk Naval Shipyard employed approximately 8,500 civilian personnel. The
number of military personnel at the shipyard is typically between 2,000 and 3,000 and can vary at
times up to approximately 15,000.
The majority of the labor force that would be employed at the shipyard for construction and
operation of the naval spent nuclear fuel area would be expected to reside within about 20 miles from
the shipyard. The total calculated population, labor force, and employment within this region for the
base year (1995) are presented in Table 4.1.2-1. Projections of employment and population for the
years beyond 1995 have not been presented because, as discussed in Section 5, the number of
additional jobs that might be created at the shipyard under any alternative could be small.
Figure 4.1.2-6. 50-mile population distribution around Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Table 4.1.2-1. Regional employment factors at Norfolk Naval Shipyard.
Regional Employment Regional Labor Force Regional Population
498,000 533,000 1,138,400
Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations," requires federal agencies to identify and address, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their
programs and activities on minority and low-income populations. An adverse environmental impact is
a deleterious environmental impact determined to be unacceptable or above generally accepted norms.
A disproportionately high impact refers to an impact (or risk of an impact) in a low-income or
minority community that significantly exceeds that on the larger community. Data available from the
U. S. Census of 1990 have been used to develop information on the locations of minority and low-
income populations within approximately 50 miles of the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, consistent with the
population data provided in Figure 4.1.2-6.
Figure 4.1.2-7 shows the locations of populations which have more than 50 percent minority
members within the 50-mile radius. Minorities make up approximately 33 percent of the total
population in this area. These populations have been identified following an approach developed by
the Environmental Protection Agency which, for purposes of environmental justice evaluation, defines
minority communities as those which have percentages of minorities greater than the average in the
region analyzed (EPA 1994).
Figure 4.1.2-8 shows the locations of populations which have more than 25 percent of their
members living in poverty, reflecting a common definition of low-income communities (EPA 1993).
The U. S. Census Bureau characterizes persons in poverty as those whose income is less than a
"statistical poverty threshold." For the 1990 census, this threshold was based on a 1989 income of
$12,500 per household.
4.1.2.4 Cultural Resources
Founded November 1, 1767 under the British flag, the shipyard pre-dates the United States
Navy Department by 30 years. The first drydocking in the western hemi-
sphere occurred at the
Figure 4.1.2-7. Minority population distribution within 50 miles of the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Figure 4.1.2-8. Low-income population distribution within 50 miles of the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. shipyard on June 17, 1833. Dry dock 1 is a National Historic Landmark. Over the years, the
shipyard has been greatly expanded. Beginning in 1963, the yard was authorized to perform Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program work.
The Naval Shipyard Museum located at the foot of High Street in downtown Portsmouth
contains many historical photographs and drawings, valuable artifacts, and archives of records tracing
the 226-year history of the shipyard and its close ties to the city of Portsmouth. This museum is open
to the public and to researchers.
No prehistoric archaeological sites have been identified at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. In
addition, no submerged cultural resources have been recorded in the immediate vicinity of the
shipyard. There are no Native American properties or ceremonial sites in the areas where spent
nuclear fuel would be stored. In the area where naval spent nuclear fuel would be stored, there are
no historic sites that are potentially eligible or listed on the National Register of Historic Places
(NPS 1991). Due to the historic nature of the shipyard, there might be areas of archaeological
interest. In the past, artifacts from the early shipbuilding era have been uncovered during construc-
tion excavation.
4.1.2.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources
The lower Chesapeake Bay - Hampton Roads region is a flat coastal plain with minimal
topographic relief. The numerous bays, rivers, and creeks that dissect the region provide access to
various wetlands consisting of saltwater marshes, bogs, and swamps. The unique ecology of these
wetlands provides habitat for numerous indigenous and migratory species of aquatic and avian
wildlife. Area beaches fronting the Atlantic Ocean from Cape Henry southward and along the
Chesapeake Bay westward from Cape Henry provide both scenic and recreational opportunities to
area residents and visitors.
The shipyard is centrally located in a highly developed urban area and has an industrialized
character. The area within the shipyard where the naval spent nuclear fuel would be stored has low
visual sensitivity since the area is an industrial site. The original character of the area has been
extensively modified in the 300 years that western man has occupied the area.
4.1.2.6 Geology
4.1.2.6.1 General Geology (Coch 1971).
The coastal plain is characterized by a series of marine
transgressions with extended periods of non-marine erosion and deposition of river sediment. From
the surface down to a depth of about 120 feet, the most recent sediments of the Columbia Group
occur. Underlying the Columbia Group is the Yorktown Formation (deposits of fine silt, sand, and
shells), which, at the location of the shipyard, is about 100 feet thick. The Calvert Formation, with a
thickness of about 345 feet, underlays the Yorktown Formation.
The Calvert Formation consists of usually consolidated greenish-brown clays, silty clays, and
silicon-based clays over a basic layer of coarse sand. The Calvert clays form an impermeable
hard-packed barrier which limits the vertical migration of shallow groundwater. This barrier also
isolates the Columbia and Yorktown regional aquifers from deeper lying aquifers contained in
permeable formations underlying the Calvert. Extensive studies of the Coastal Plain of Virginia
sponsored by the Virginia Division of Mineral Resources have been conducted and published in
various bulletins and reports (Teifke and Onuschak 1973; Coch 1971).
4.1.2.6.2 Geologic Resources.
There are no unique or economic geological resources in the
shipyard region. (Teifke and Onuschak 1973; Coch 1971)
4.1.2.6.3 Seismic and Volcanic Hazards.
Seismic risk related to structural damage may be
represented in the United States by a relative scale of 0 through 4, with Zone 0 not expected to
encounter damage and Zone 4 expected to encounter the greatest seismic risk. The Norfolk Naval
Shipyard is located in Zone 1. (UBC 1991) No volcanic hazards exist. The Uniform Building Code
seismic classification provides a means for a comparable assessment of the seismic hazard between the
alternate sites. If the Record of Decision identifies this site for the interim storage of naval spent
fuel, then a detailed seismic evaluation would be conducted. More detailed information regarding the
design basis considerations for storage of naval spent nuclear fuel at the shipyard is presented in
Attachment D.
4.1.2.7 Air Resources
4.1.2.7.1 Climate and Meteorology.
The Tidewater area is nearly surrounded by water with
Chesapeake Bay to the north, Hampton Roads to the west, and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. The
area contains numerous bays and is traversed by several rivers and creeks. The climate of the region
is essentially marine. The land is level and low with an average elevation of 13 feet above sea level.
Based on the 1951 through 1980 period, the average first occurrence of 32 degrees Fahrenheit
is November 17 and the average last occurrence is March 23. Temperatures of above 100 degrees
are infrequent and below zero temperatures are almost nonexistent. The proximity to the surrounding
water modifies the invading air masses. Summer winds are predominantly from the south and
southwest, pulling large amounts of moisture up from the Gulf of Mexico. During the summer
months, afternoon thunderstorms due to daytime heating of the near surface air are very common.
Large areas of high pressure frequently stall just east of the southern coast. These "Bermuda Highs"
can lead to extended periods of hot, humid weather with very little precipitation other than scattered
thunderstorms. Thunderstorms occasionally spawn isolated tornadic activity throughout the region.
Although locally destructive, the tornados move through the area rapidly along with storm centers.
Precipitation is distributed fairly evenly throughout the year and totals about 43 inches on the
average. Snowfall is usually light and is frequently gone within 24 hours. Large accumulations do
occur but are infrequent. July and August are generally the wettest months due to thunderstorms
while November and December are the dryest. Average monthly precipitation is 3.5 inches. Spring
weather can begin as early as March but more frequently occurs in April. This is a transitional
period between winter and summer weather patterns. During the spring, summer-like days, rain,
snow, and cold-humid weather can and frequently do occur during the same week. Mild weather in
the fall usually extends through Thanksgiving.
Winter climate is primarily determined by the latitude of the upper level jet stream which
steers eastwardly moving arctic air masses. Usually, winters are mild with alternating periods of cold
and warm weather. Winter rains are frequent due to the frontal boundaries formed from low-pressure
storm cells to the north and moisture-laden Gulf air moved into the area by a high-pressure area to
the south. North to northeast winds predominate during the winter months. Northeast winds can
affect the Atlantic Coast from the Carolinas northward. Strong northeast winds and heavy rains can
cause localized flooding of low-lying areas. Since the Chesapeake Bay is shallow, a strong northeast
wind can move large amounts of water from the north end of the bay southward. When this elevated
water level is combined with a high tide, flooding occurs. Added to this is the heavy rainfall and
poor drainage due to the low elevation. High tide levels 6 to 8 feet above normal are experienced
during major northeast winds along with major beach erosion from Cape Henry to Cape Hatteras.
4.1.2.7.2 Air Quality.
An area can be designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as
having air quality that is better than defined by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(attainment) or as exceeding one or more of those standards (nonattainment for one or more
pollutants). The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 81, states that the Air Quality Control
Region, in which the shipyard is located, is in marginal nonattainment for ozone and is better than
national standards for total suspended particulate matter and SO2. The area has no specific classifica-
tion for carbon monoxide and NO2. The nearest Class I Area is the Swanquarter National Wilderness
Area, approximately 161 kilometers (100 miles) from the shipyard.
4.1.2.7.3 Existing Radiological Conditions.
Radiological facilities at all naval shipyards are
designed to ensure that there are no uncontrolled discharges of radioactivity in airborne exhausts.
Radiological controls are exercised to preclude exposure of working personnel to airborne radio-
activity exceeding federal limits. Air exhausted from radiological work facilities is passed through
high-efficiency particulate air filters and monitored during discharges. The annual airborne
radioactivity emissions from the shipyards do not result in any measurable radiation exposure to the
general public. Calculations of site radioactive airborne emissions for 1992 have been performed as
described in Attachment F. These calculations have shown that emissions of radionuclides from each
shipyard result in an effective dose equivalent of less than 0.1 mrem per year to any member of the
general public.
4.1.2.8 Water Resources
4.1.2.8.1 Surface Water.
Hampton Roads is a relatively wide body of water formed by the
confluence of the James, Elizabeth, and Nansemond Rivers. It connects on the east with the
Chesapeake Bay. The natural depth of the main part of Hampton Roads ranges from 20 to 80 feet;
however, the harbor shoals to less than 10 feet toward shore. Two channels are maintained at a depth
of 40 feet by dredging. The currents in Hampton Roads are influenced considerably by the winds and
have a velocity of 0.5 m/sec.
The Elizabeth River is the most downriver tributary of the James River. The Elizabeth River
system is comprised of a main stem, running from Sewell's Point and Craney Island to Town and
Pinner Points, plus four tributary arms: the Lafayette River and the Eastern, Western, and Southern
Branches.
Deep navigation channels are maintained from Hampton Roads up the main stem and
Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. Project depths decrease from 45 feet at the mouth to 35 feet
between the Norfolk Naval Shipyard and Newton Creek. The channels in the Eastern and Western
Branch and Lafayette River are maintained at 25 feet, 14 feet, and 8 feet, respectively.
The Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River is an estuarine body of water in which tidal
action brings about a mixing of salt and fresh water. This portion of the river is a slow-moving,
heavily sediment-laden body of water. The movement of the water is affected by the narrowness of
the channel and the influence of tidal action.
Located along the river banks and in the surrounding territory are extensive and important
naval bases and docking facilities, pleasant exurbs and yacht clubs, dry docks and international
shipping terminals, the commercial centers of Norfolk and Portsmouth, relatively quiet rural areas,
and the Great Dismal Swamp.
Neither the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, nor the Hampton Roads Harbor, is fished
commercially. Within these waterbodies, it has been established by the Virginia Department of
Health that it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to take shellfish from the
condemned areas for any reason.
Norfolk Naval Shipyard is located on the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River in a highly
industrialized area of the city of Portsmouth, Virginia, 8 miles upstream from the confluence of the
James and Elizabeth Rivers. The Southern Branch is a deep-water river which provides access to
heavy industry (i.e., ship repairs, gas and oil distribution, etc.) in the vicinity of the shipyard. In
addition, the Southern Branch is a major north-south part of the Army Corp of Engineers Intercoastal
Waterway System.
The Southern Branch is brackish and is not a source of drinking water. The Southern Branch
of the Elizabeth River-Naval Shipyard waterbody extends from Jones and Paradise Creeks to the
Downtown Tunnel (Route 264). Shellfish condemnations impact 429 acres. This condemnation is
due to historical sediment toxic contamination, and the potential for pollutants of fecal coliform
bacteria (Virginia WCB 1992a). Sixteen industrial facilities discharge to the Southern Branch
Elizabeth River main stem and tributaries. Surveys of finfish in the Elizabeth River (primarily in the
Southern Branch) show obvious signs of stress and/or disease, especially among those species exposed
to the contaminated bottom sediments. Many fish have external lesions, fin erosion, inflamed fins,
and cataracts.
The bottom sediments of the Elizabeth River are highly contaminated with a variety of
organic and inorganic compounds at several locations (Virginia WCB 1992a). The majority of the
contamination problems occur in the highly industrialized Southern Branch. Of particular concern
among the synthetic organic compounds found in the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth are
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's). They are long-lived, and many are mutagenic and
carcinogenic. PAH's are found in a variety of sources including creosote, coal tar, coal pile runoff,
fly and bottom ash from coal-fired boilers, roofing tar, asphalt oil, petroleum oil, bilge discharge,
diesel soot, and wood stove soot. One source of this class of compounds in the Elizabeth River has
been attributed to the wood-preserving facilities, which have been in operation along the Southern
Branch since the early 1900's.
The James River-Hampton Roads waterbody encompasses the James River mainstem and
tributaries from Old Point Comfort to Willoughby Spit (northern border) to the west side of Craney
Island (eastern border), west to Barrel Point (southern border), and north to Boat Harbor, Hampton
River, and Mill Creek. Shellfish condemnations impact 17,281 acres (Virginia WCB 1992a). This
condemnation is due to historical toxic contamination, and the potential for fecal coliform bacteria
pollution. This portion of the James River mainstem receives additional discharges from 14 facilities,
at least half of which are seafood preparation waste discharges.
Surrounding the Nansemond River watershed are seven lakes (Lake Kilby, Lake Cahoon,
Lake Meade, Speights Run Lake, Lake Prince, Lake Burnt Mills, and Western Branch Reservoir)
which are used as public water supply sources for the surrounding cities. Lake Taylor, located in the
city of Norfolk, is the closest lake and is approximately 7 miles from Norfolk Naval Shipyard. The
other lakes are approximately 20 miles to the west of the shipyard.
The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM COMMUNITY-PANEL No. 515529 0060 B) shows
that most of the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, including the location considered for the interim storage of
naval spent nuclear fuel, is in the 100-year floodplain. However, the location considered for naval
spent nuclear fuel is not in a high-hazard area (as defined by Title 10, Part 1022 of The Code of
Federal Regulations for floodplains) which is an area where frequent flooding occurs.
4.1.2.8.2 Groundwater.
Shallow groundwater underlies the whole region. Designated as the
Columbia aquifer, it is composed primarily of sediments that were deposited up to 1.7 to 2.2 million
years ago as channel fill and river or ocean terraces. The aquifer is composed of interbedded gravel,
sand, silt, and clay and is unconfined throughout the region. The saturated thickness of the Columbia
aquifer is about 80 feet in the Tidewater area.
A consolidated layer of silty clay underlies the water table and separates it from the Yorktown
Formation. In general, water flow within the Columbia aquifer is from the topographic highs to
topographic lows. This flow distribution is modified locally by the pumping of wells, dewatering of
borrow pits, and by the upper contours of the Yorktown Formation. As a result, the depth of shallow
wells can vary drastically in only a few hundred yards.
Underlying the Columbia aquifer are seven distinct aquifers that originate east of the Fall Line
and progressively deepen as they proceed eastward. The names of the aquifers and their approximate
depths at the location of the shipyard are shown in Table 4.1.2-2.
The material confining the individual aquifers thickens from west to east so that the vertical
leakage between aquifers due to gravity or artesian pressure differentials decreases eastward. The
Yorktown-Eastover aquifer is both confined and unconfined, depending on location, and consists of
fine to coarse sand interbedded with clay, shell, and sandy clay. The formation thickness is about
100 feet in the vicinity of the shipyard. Where the aquifer is unconfined, it is a major source of
recharge to both the water table aquifer and to underlying confined flow systems.
Table 4.1.2-2. Aquifers that underlie the Columbia aquifer.
Aquifer Depth Below Sea Level (ft)
Yorktown - Eastover Sea Level
Chickahominy - Piney Point 200
Aquia 400
Brightseat 500
Upper Potomac 750
Middle Potomac 900
Lower Potomac >1500
Artesian pressure existing in the confined portions of the Yorktown aquifer causes an upward
vertical leakage from the Yorktown aquifer into the water table aquifer. In the vicinity of the
shipyard, the thickness of the confining layer is about 80 feet. The confining layer consists of
blue-gray to green-gray clay interbedded with massive silty clay, fine sand, and chalky shell
fragments.
The Yorktown aquifer is a major source of domestic, commercial, and light industrial water.
Yields are reported to range from 20 to 250 gallons per minute. This aquifer is the usual source of
drinking and domestic consumption water for those localities within the region not served by
municipal water systems. The groundwater aquifers have been extensively monitored and results
published in numerous papers, bulletins, and reports (Siudyla et al. 1981; USGS 1990). Groundwater
quality is monitored by several state agencies and boards with annual reports submitted to the EPA
and Congress (Virginia WCB 1992b).
Since the underlying layers slope downward from west to east, the flow of groundwater in the
vicinity of the shipyard generally trends from west to east, with localized modifications as previously
described.
Rivers and creeks bound the shipyard on the immediate east and south. The confluence of the
Southern, Eastern, and Western Branches of the Elizabeth River occurs about 1.5 miles north of the
shipyard. These stream beds are below sea level and thus intercept the water table aquifer.
Where an aquifer is interfaced with surface streams or impoundments, the net flow within the
aquifer is toward the surface water. In the case of the shipyard, the water table aquifer is intercepted
on three sides (N, E, S) by a surface stream. This confines any contaminant infiltrating into the
aquifer to the area of and immediately adjacent to the shipyard property. With a net easterly flow due
to gravity, any contaminant infiltrating from the shipyard area would percolate through the soil zone
into the water table under the shipyard and be intercepted by bounding surface waters.
4.1.2.8.3 Existing Radiological Conditions.
The normal activities associated with current naval
nuclear operations at all naval shipyards do not result in the intentional discharge of any radioactive
liquid effluent. However, there were occasions, primarily in the early 1960's, when measurable
levels of radioactivity were discharged with liquid effluent. In all cases, effluent releases were less
than permitted under the then current limits imposed by state and federal agencies.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation Programs has
performed monitoring of the water, plant life, aquatic life, and sediment in the vicinity of Norfolk
Naval Shipyard. The purpose of the survey was to determine if operations related to U.S. Navy
nuclear warship activities resulted in releases of radionuclides which could contribute to significant
population exposure or contamination of the environment. "Radiological Surveys of the Norfolk
Naval Station, the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, and Newport News Shipbuilding" (Sensintaffar and
Blanchard 1988) discusses the most recent Environmental Protection Agency monitoring data.
Pertinent conclusions are as follows:
1. "The trace amounts of cobalt-60 measured in the harbor sediments are significantly less
than observed during the 1968 survey and exist about 5 inches beneath the surface of the
sediment, indicating that no detectable cobalt-60 has been deposited in the sediments
since the 1968 survey.
2. In addition to cobalt-60, only radionuclides of natural origin plus trace amounts of
cesium-137 from previous nuclear weapons testing were detected in any of the harbor
sediment samples.
3. No tritium or gamma-ray emitters, other than those occurring naturally, were detected in
harbor water, or samples of sediment, water, and vegetation collected from public areas.
4. Drinking water samples contained no detectable levels of radioactivity other than those
occurring naturally.
5. The shoreline gamma-ray surveys failed to detect any elevated exposure levels except at
one location where the levels are attributed to the naturally occurring radionuclides that
exist in granite rock.
6. The levels and locations of radioactivity identified and the limited media in which it was
found show that operations related to nuclear-powered warship activities resulted in no
discernible adverse effects on public health or the environment."
Environmental monitoring is conducted by the shipyard. The results of this monitoring
program corroborate the Environmental Protection Agency's conclusions.
4.1.2.9 Ecological Resources
4.1.2.9.1 Terrestrial Ecology.
The shipyard area is highly developed and its surface is about
95% covered with impervious materials. The few green areas are outside the controlled industrial
area and have been extensively graded. Landscaping consists primarily of turf grasses and native
trees. The oldest growth areas are in the vicinity of the Shipyard Commander's residence and Trophy
Park. Appendix B of the "Land Management Plan for Norfolk Naval Shipyard" (NFEC 1991) lists
those plants known to or likely to occur on the shipyard or its annexes.
The shipyard bird population consists of urban species commonly found in southeastern
Virginia. These species include pigeons, jays, robins, finches, chickadees, starlings, flickers,
blackbirds, grackles, cowbirds, chimney swifts, martins, mocking birds, cardinals, herons, egrets,
terns, and several species of gulls. There are few mammals that inhabit the shipyard and their
populations are limited. Squirrels and other rodents common to developed areas are observed.
The shipyard offers little refuge for reptiles and amphibians. Non-poisonous garter snakes
and the occasional black snake are found in vegetated areas and in warehouse structures. Toads,
newts, salamanders, and other semi-aquatic reptiles can be found in wet areas where suitable forage
and habitat exists. Sightings are infrequent due to the dispersed habitat locations and the limited
number of suitable sites.
The Tidewater area is part of the Mid-Atlantic flyway. Migratory species pass through the
area or over-winter in the numerous bays, sounds, creeks, and wetlands that occur in the region.
During migratory periods and over the winter, more than a hundred species of water fowl have been
observed in the region. Since there is no suitable habitat or forage areas on the shipyard, the
appearance of migrating species is rare.
4.1.2.9.2 Wetlands.
There are no freshwater wetlands on the main shipyard site where naval
spent nuclear fuel would be stored. The majority of the shipyard is developed and covered with an
impervious surface. National Wetlands Inventory Maps (DOI 1986) show a number of estuarine
wetlands along the banks of Paradise, Blows, and St. Juliens Creeks. There are no remaining tidal
wetlands along the western shoreline of the Southern Branch from its mouth to Paradise Creek
(Silberhorn and Dewing 1989). The total wetland area along Paradise Creek is, according to this
reference, about 422 acres.
Blows Creek wetlands occur along the Southern Branch and encompass about 2.54 acres.
St. Juliens Creek tidal marshes are subdivided into eight locations and total about 52 acres
(Silberhorn and Dewing 1991).
4.1.2.9.3 Aquatic Ecology.
The majority of the shipyard property is located on land that has
been filled to raise its elevation above the level of the river. The shipyard shoreline consists of
concrete bulkheads and finger piers built on concrete pilings. Wooden wharfs and quays have been
replaced over the years with concrete structures. Marine vegetation along the shipyard waterfront is
limited to red and green algae. As reported in Section 4.1.2.8.1, the marine life in the Southern
Branch is limited due to the pollution in the river from sewage treatment plants and riverfront
industries. There is no commercial fishing and only limited sport fishing in the Southern Branch. In
the contiguous shipyard waters, there is no fishing due to a security buffer zone and because of the
heavy traffic along the river.
Estuarine wetland ecology is principally vegetative and consists of Saltmarsh Cord grass and
Reed grass. The abundance of Reed grass in these areas is indicative of disturbed wetlands that have
been filled or are impacted by overloads of upland sediment.
Herring gulls, several species of terns, brown pelicans, egrets, herons, cormorants, and
migratory bird species common along the Atlantic flyway take refuge in or feed on riverine or
marshland environments and biota.
The waters adjoining the shipyard are frequently dredged to maintain the depth along the
piers, at the entrance to dry docks, and in the turning basin. The periodic removal of silt and detritus
limits the habitat of benthic organisms common in other parts of the lower bay and tributaries.
4.1.2.9.4 Endangered and Threatened Species.
There are no critical habitats as defined in
50CFR424.02 within the 15-mile tidal influence area. Several federally designated threatened (T) or
endangered (E) species have been identified as existing in the vicinity. The exact locations of specific
habitats could not be located; however, surveys of the area have not identified any habitat on shipyard
property. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the following species as endangered or threatened
in the South Hampton Roads area from Suffolk eastward (DOI 1990).
1. Loggerhead turtle (T)
2. Bald eagle (E)
3. Peregrine falcon (E)
4. Piping plover (T)
5. Red-cockaded woodpecker (E)
6. Eastern cougar (E)
7. Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew (T)
8. Northeastern beach tiger beetle (T)
No state rare, threatened, or endangered species exist within the 15-mile tidal influence zone
(Buhlmann and Ludwig 1992).
There are no marine mammals that are routinely found within the lower Chesapeake Bay or
its tributaries. Manatees and Atlantic Bottlenose dolphins occasionally appear in the bay and
Hampton Roads; however, their presence is transient. Stranding and grounding of pods of migratory
whales and dolphins as well as carcasses of dead animals occasionally appear along Atlantic beaches
from Virginia's Eastern Shore to the North Carolina Outer Banks but sightings of whales in the bay
or near the ocean shore are rare.
Various oceanic turtles may nest along the sandy beaches surrounding the Chesapeake Bay
and Outer Banks. The highly developed regions along the Elizabeth River do not provide suitable
nesting sites for these marine reptiles.
4.1.2.10 Noise
Norfolk Naval Shipyard is an existing industrial-type environment characterized by noise from
truck and auto traffic; yard cranes and related internal combustion engine powered equipment; and
operating transmission lines for steam, air, and water along with associated pumps and compressors.
The eastern shoreline of the Southern Branch contains private shipyards, manufacturing plants, and
bulk material handling and storage terminals. These activities, along with Norfolk Naval Shipyard,
add to the ambient noise levels of the river corridor.
Intervening structures and distance separate adjacent residential areas to the south and
immediately west of the shipyard from the waterfront ship repair activities and thus attenuate the noise
generated by those activities.
4.1.2.11 Traffic and Transportation
Within the city of Portsmouth, three main corridors, High Street, Portsmouth Boulevard, and
George Washington Highway serve as access to suburban commercial and residential areas.
The
Downtown and Midtown tunnels link Portsmouth and Norfolk and join via connecting arteries the
regional interstate highway network consisting of I-64, I-262, I-464, and I-664. I-64 crosses
Hampton Roads while I-664 crosses the lower James River linking the southside cities to Newport
News and Hampton on the peninsula. The bridge-tunnels allow the unimpeded flow of the largest
commercial ships and warships through Hampton Roads.
Tidewater Regional Transit provides bus services throughout Portsmouth and Norfolk. Only
limited public transportation is available in Chesapeake and Virginia Beach.
The Norfolk International Airport provides commercial scheduled passenger and cargo air
service to major connecting hubs. Most private and general aviation not operating from Norfolk
International operate from airports in Chesapeake, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach.
A passenger ferry across the Elizabeth River connects the Portsmouth downtown area with the
Waterside Berths on the Norfolk side. This ferry service is primarily designed for tourist and
recreational passengers rather than commuter service.
Norfolk Southern and CSX corporations operate extensive networks of rail transportation for
freight and bulk cargo. Norfolk and Newport News are the nation's largest terminals for coal exports
and, along with Portsmouth, have a large capacity for containerized and bulk cargos. Lines operated
by CSX and Norfolk Southern subsidiaries serve the shipyard at the north and south ends, Southgate,
and St. Juliens Creek annexes.
Naval spent nuclear fuel has been removed from Navy nuclear-powered ships and transported
to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Expended Core Facility (ECF) for examination and
evaluation as a routine part of their operating cycle. Naval spent nuclear fuel shipments from Norfolk
Naval Shipyard to ECF were initiated in 1965. Since that time, 10 shipments of naval spent nuclear
fuel originating at Norfolk Naval Shipyard have been made to ECF. The naval spent nuclear fuel was
shipped by rail. Attachment A provides a list of these shipments made to date by year. Attachment
A also contains detailed descriptions of the shipping containers used for naval spent nuclear fuel
shipments from shipyards.
Norfolk Naval Shipyard has 30 miles of paved roads, 19 miles of railroad tracks, and dry
docks.
4.1.2.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety
4.1.2.12.1 Occupational Radiological Health and Safety. The Navy has well established and
effective Occupational Safety, Health, and Occupational Medicine programs at all of its shipyards. In
regard to radiological aspects of these programs, the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program policy is to
reduce to as low as reasonably achievable the external exposure to personnel from ionizing radiation
associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants. These stringent controls on minimizing occupational
radiation exposure have been successful. No civilian or military personnel at Navy sites have ever
exceeded the federal accumulated radiation exposure limit which allows 5 rem exposure for each year
of age beyond age 18. Since 1967, no person has exceeded the federal limit which allows up to
3 rem per quarter year and since 1980, no one has received more than 2 rem per year from radiation
associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants. The average occupational exposure of each person
monitored at all shipyards is 0.26 rem per year. The average lifetime accumulated radiation exposure
from radiation associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants for all shipyard personnel who were
monitored is 1.2 rem. (NNPP 1994a) This corresponds to the likelihood of a cancer fatality of 1 in
2083.
The Navy's policy on occupational exposure from internal radioactivity is to prevent radiation
exposure to personnel from internal radioactivity. The limits invoked to achieve this objective are
one-tenth of the levels allowed by federal regulations for radiation workers. As a result of this
policy, no civilian or military personnel at shipyards have ever received more than one-tenth the
federal annual occupational exposure limit from internal radiation exposure caused by radioactivity
associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants.
For work operations involving the potential for spreading radioactive contamination, contain-
ments are used to prevent personnel contamination or generation of airborne radioactivity. The
controls for contamination are so strict that precautions sometimes have had to be taken to prevent
tracking contamination from fallout and natural sources into radiological areas because the contamina-
tion control limits used in these areas were well below the levels of fallout and natural contamination
occurring outside in the general public areas. A basic requirement of contamination control is
monitoring all personnel leaving any area where radioactive contamination could possibly occur.
Workers are trained to survey themselves (i.e., frisk), and their performance is checked by radiologi-
cal control personnel. Frisking of the entire body is required, normally using sensitive hand-held
survey instruments. Major work facilities are equipped with portable monitors, which are used in lieu
of hand-held friskers. These stringent controls to protect the workers and the public from contamina-
tion have proven effective in the past.
In 1991, researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, completed a very
comprehensive epidemiological study of the health of workers at the six naval shipyards and two
private shipyards that service the Navy's nuclear-powered ships (Matanoski 1991). This independent
study evaluated a population of 70,730 civilian workers over a period from 1957, beginning with the
first overhaul of the first nuclear-powered submarine, USS NAUTILUS, through 1981, to determine
whether there was an excess risk of leukemia or other cancers associated with exposure to low levels
of gamma radiation.
The Johns Hopkins study found no evidence to conclude that the health of people involved in
work on U.S. naval nuclear-powered ships has been adversely affected by exposure to low levels of
radiation incidental to this work. Additional studies are planned to investigate the observa-
tions and update the shipyard study with data beyond 1981.
The radiation exposure during normal operations at each shipyard for workers who have their
radiation levels monitored is determined based on the annual radiation exposure of 0.26 mrem per
worker for all shipyards based on Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program Report NT-94-2 (NNPP 1994a).
The total number of shipyard personnel monitored for radiation exposure associated with the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program has been about 164,000.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. The radiation exposure to transpor-
tation workers for all historical shipments is 16.6 person-rem, which statistically corresponds to
0.0066 cancer fatalities. The maximum exposed individual (MEI) is a transportation worker, since
the workers are closer to the shipment for a longer time than any member of the general population.
Under the limiting assumption that the same worker is associated with every shipment for the entire
historical period, this person would receive a total exposure of 7.5 rem over the approximately
40-year period, or about 0.19 rem per year, which is within DOE standards for occupationally
exposed individuals. The radiation exposures to workers correspond to much less than one incident
cancer, which means that it is unlikely that there have been any past health impacts due to all
historical shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such shipments.
4.1.2.12.2 Occupational Non-radiological Health and Safety.
In the non-radiological
Occupational Safety, Health, and Occupational Medicine area, the Navy complies with the Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Administration Regulations. The Navy policy is to maintain a safe and
healthful work environment at all naval facilities. Due to the varied nature of work at these facilities,
there is a potential for certain employees to be exposed to physical and chemical hazards. These
employees are routinely monitored during work and receive medical surveillance for physical hazards
such as exposure to high noise levels or heat stress. In addition, employees are monitored for their
exposure to chemical hazards such as organic solvents, lead, asbestos, etc., and where appropriate are
placed into medical surveillance programs for these chemical hazards.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. Approximately 0.028 fatalities are
estimated as a result of non-radiological sources (vehicle emissions) associated with all historical
shipments of spent nuclear fuel. This number includes both the workers and the general public.
Since this number is much less than one, it is unlikely that there has been any non-radiological health
impact due to the historical shipment of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such
shipments.
The shipyard has an occupational health/preventive medicine unit and a branch clinic
(industrial dispensary). Personnel may also be taken to Portsmouth Naval Hospital and Portsmouth
General Hospital as needed.
The shipyard maintains two fire stations with approximately 60 personnel. The fire depart-
ment is fully equipped for structural and industrial firefighting and hazardous material spill response.
The shipyard security force has approximately 100 personnel providing law enforcement
services, emergency services, security clearances, and parking and traffic control for the Norfolk
Naval Shipyard Complex.
Relative to social services, military personnel receive assistance through various programs at
Portsmouth Naval Hospital and the Navy's Morale Welfare and Recreation Department.
4.1.2.12.3 Public Radiological Health and Safety.
In order to quantify the exposures resulting
from normal shipyard radiological releases to the general public, detailed analyses were performed
based on conservative estimates of radioisotopic releases since releases began. Attachment F provides
detailed annual release values used in the analyses.
The GENII computer code (Napier et al. 1988) was used to calculate exposures to human
beings due to the estimated radionuclide releases from normal operations at the shipyards.
A person on the shipyard boundary at the location where the largest exposures would be
received was used as the hypothetical maximally exposed off-site individual (MOI) for postulated
releases of radioactive material from stored fuel. The population data used to calculate population
exposures were taken from 1990 census data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Meteorology data
were obtained as described in Attachment F.
The hypothetical exposures calculated in Attachment F for the period 1995 through 2035 were
adjusted from an annual basis (1995) to the historical basis by multiplying by 38 years and by a factor
of 1.7 to take into consideration variations in the number of ships and operations.
The calculated accumulated exposures through 1995 to the general population within 50 miles
of the site (about 1.5 million people) are 3.9 person-rem. To provide perspective, the exposures
received due to natural radiation sources through 1995 are approximately 18 million person-rem,
based on 0.3 rem per person per year.
The results of environmental monitoring as described in Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program
Report NT-94-1 show that Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program activities had no distinguishable effect
on normal background radiation levels at site perimeters (NNPP 1994b).
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. The radiation exposure to the
general population for all historical shipments is 1.95 person-rem, which statistically corresponds to
0.00098 cancer fatalities.
All of the radiation exposures to the general population correspond to much less than one
incident cancer, which means that it is unlikely that there has been any past health impact to the
public due to all historical shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such
shipments.
4.1.2.12.4 Public Non-radiological Health and Safety.
Portsmouth has three hospitals:
Portsmouth General Hospital, Maryview Hospital, and Portsmouth Naval Hospital.
Fire protection in Portsmouth is administered by local fire departments and fire districts. The
Portsmouth Fire Department has nine stations. Police protection services are provided by the city of
Portsmouth.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. Approximately 0.028 fatalities are
estimated as a result of non-radiological sources (vehicle emissions) associated with all historical
shipments of spent nuclear fuel. This number includes both the workers and the general public.
Since this number is much less than one, it is unlikely that there has been any non-radiological health
impact to the public due to all historical shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history
of such shipments.
4.1.2.13 Utilities and Energy
The shipyard purchases all of its water from the city of Portsmouth.
Section 4.1.2.8.1
describes the sources of public water supplies for the region. A saltwater system is provided at berths
and dry docks for cooling supplies to ship systems and for fire and flushing mains.
Shipyard and ship sewage effluents are discharged to the Hampton Roads sanitation district
mains via the Portsmouth sewer system. Sewage treatment plants along the Southern Branch and
lower James River receive and treat sewage from surrounding cities.
Electricity is purchased from Virginia Power Company transmission grids and is obtained
from the Refuse Derived Fuel Plant located just south of the shipyard and operated by the Southeast-
ern Public Service Authority. During periods of low demand, the Refuse Derived Fuel Plant sells
electricity to Virginia Power. The Refuse Derived Fuel Plant also provides yard steam for operations
and space heating.
Natural gas serves six buildings within the shipyard. Industrial uses include forging and
tempering furnaces, various ovens and torches, laboratory burners, and cooking appliances in the
cafeteria. This gas is purchased from Commonwealth Gas Company which serves the Portsmouth
area.
Shipyard freshwater usage is approximately 823 million gallons annually.
Electricity usage is about 20,000 megawatt hours annually.
4.1.2.14 Materials and Waste Management
Solid waste generated by the shipyard is collected by a private contractor.
Metals are
segregated on-site in specially marked dumpsters to be recycled by the Defense Marketing and
Reutilization Office. Solid burnable waste is transferred to the Southeastern Public Service Authority
where it is either compacted into fuel blocks for use in the Refuse Derived Fuel Plant or disposed of
at a regional landfill located in Suffolk. Once turned over, the Southeastern Public Service Authority
determines the final disposition depending on the regional waste volume inventory at the fuel plant
adjacent to the shipyard.
The Refuse Derived Fuel Plant provides electricity and steam to the shipyard and can provide
power to the Virginia Power grid when excess capacity exists.
Liquid chemical wastes are collected, characterized, packaged, and labeled by the shipyard
then turned over to a licensed contractor for disposal.
Solid radioactive waste materials are packaged in strong, tight containers, shielded as
necessary, and shipped to burial sites licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or a State
under agreement with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Shipyards and other shore facilities
are not permitted to dispose of radioactive solid wastes by burial on their own sites. During 1992,
approximately 1333 cubic yards of routine low-level radioactive waste containing 15 curies were
shipped from the shipyard for burial.
Waste which is both radioactive and chemically hazardous is regulated under both the Atomic
Energy Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as "mixed waste." Within the
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, concerted efforts are taken to avoid commingling radioactive and
chemically hazardous substances so as to minimize the potential for generation of mixed waste. For
example, these efforts include avoiding the use of acetone solvents, lead-based paints, lead shielding
in disposal containers, and chemical paint removers. Radioactive wastes, including those containing
chemically hazardous substances, are handled in accordance with long-standing Program radiological
requirements. Such handling includes solidification to immobilize the radioactivity, separation of the
radioactive and chemically hazardous substances, removal of liquids from solids, and other simple
techniques. A determination is then made as to whether the resulting waste is hazardous. As a result
of Program efforts to avoid the use of chemically hazardous substances in radiological work, Program
activities typically generate only a few hundred cubic feet of mixed waste each year. This small
amount of mixed waste, along with limited amounts of mixed waste from Program work conducted
prior to 1987, will be stored pending the licensing of commer-
cial treatment and disposal facilities.
An extensive storm drain system exists on the shipyard to remove the runoff from precipita-
tion. Outfalls empty into the Southern Branch, Paradise Creek, and St. Juliens Creek. About 100
outfalls serving the shipyard property have been mapped and located.
4.1.3 PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD: KITTERY, MAINE
4.1.3.1 Overview
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is located in York County, in the southeast corner of Maine as
shown on Figure 4.1.3-1. The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is located in Portsmouth Harbor, the
estuary of the Piscataqua River. This river flows between the states of Maine and New Hampshire.
The shipyard is located on Seavey Island near the mouth of the river and is separated from
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, by the main channel of the Piscataqua River and from Kittery, Maine
by a back channel. Access to the shipyard is provided by two bridges from the Kittery shore. Figure
4.1.3-2 provides a shipyard site map.
Seavey Island has an area of 278 acres. The center reference point on the island is at
70y44'22" longitude and 43y04'56" latitude. The Portsmouth Harbor and its tributaries are used
extensively for fishing, lobstering, and recreational boating. The port of Portsmouth is involved in
importing salt and petroleum products, as well as exporting a variety of products, such as raw
lumber.
4.1.3.2 Land Use
At the mouth of the Piscataqua River, several creeks and the river converge and mix with the
Atlantic Ocean. The shipyard has been developed over time by filling in between five smaller islands
and building a rock causeway to the approximately 5-acre undeveloped Clarks Island.
To the north, across the back channel, is the predominantly low-density residential community
of Kittery, Maine. Kittery's land along the river and back channel is virtually all designated for
residential use. The exceptions are two commercial areas located on Badgers Island and at the
intersection of Routes 103 and 236 and several public use areas consisting of playgrounds and parks.
The main commercial land use area is located along Route 1 and the Route 1 bypass. Most of
Kittery's land further north is undeveloped due to natural constraints. The developable land is
primarily designated for low-density residential use.
Figure 4.1.3-1. Location of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard within New Hampshire and Maine. Figure 4.1.3-2. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard site map. Across the river, south of the shipyard, are the city of Portsmouth and the town of New
Castle in the state of New Hampshire. Portsmouth's waterfront is nearly fully developed and has
played an important role in the growth and prosperity of Portsmouth since it was settled as
Strawberry Banke in 1623. Today there are areas of commercial, industrial, residential, and
public/semi-public land use along the river.
Further inland, Portsmouth has large undeveloped land areas. Development on some of this
land is constrained by wetlands and other natural factors; however, there still remains much acreage
to accommodate future development.
Directly south of the shipyard is a large body of estuarine water containing several small
islands. These islands are either undeveloped or have low-density housing.
The town of New Castle is predominantly developed with housing and is the location of a
Coast Guard Station. Other land uses on the island town include commercial, public, and semi-public
land.
4.1.3.3 Socioeconomics
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is located in the small town of Kittery, Maine, a region of New
England that consists predominantly of small rural towns.
Portsmouth, New Hampshire is the closest urban municipality to the shipyard. With a
population of about 22,300, it is also the largest municipality in the area. Other larger municipalities
within the area include Sanford and Biddeford in Maine and Rochester and Dover in New Hampshire.
They have populations of approximately 20,500, 20,700, 26,600, and 25,000, respectively. Portland,
Maine has a population of about 64,400. This major southern Maine urban center is located about 55
miles north of the shipyard. Also, the city of Boston, Massachusetts, with a population of about
574,300, is located approximately 50 miles south of the shipyard. Figure 4.1.3-3 provides a
population distribution rose centered on the shipyard and covering a 50-mile radius.
Figure 4.1.3-3. 50-mile population distribution around Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The overall population of the Portsmouth region has grown through the 1980 to 1990 decade.
On the Maine side of the Piscataqua River, the increase in population in York County from 1980 to
1990 was 24,848 which was a 17.8% increase. On the New Hampshire side of the river, the
municipalities within Rockingham County gained in population through the 1980 to 1990 decade.
There was a gain of 55,500 people or about a 29.2% increase.
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is located within the "seacoast region" which is defined by seven
job centers. Each center includes the smaller communities adjacent to them.
The seacoast region is made up of the Portsmouth, Exeter-Epping, Hampton, Dover-Somers-
worth, and Rochester centers in New Hampshire and the Kittery and Biddeford centers in Maine.
Historically, the economy of the seacoast region has been based on manufacturing. Textiles,
shoes, and marine vessels were for many years the most important products of the region.
Shipbuilding and ship repair, primarily at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, have maintained a dominant
role in the economy. Textiles and shoe manufacturing have declined over the past 30 years, but have
been supplemented in part by plastics, electronics, and metals industries. The wages paid by these
employers are low relative to those paid at the shipyard. On balance, the seacoast region has
experienced consistent declines in manufacturing employment in recent years.
Non-manufacturing employment, especially in the trade and service sectors, is increasing.
The Hampton, Portsmouth, Kittery, and Biddeford job centers have experienced economic growth as
vacation resorts. Communities close to Massachusetts such as Hampton and Exeter-Epping, have
grown as part of the Boston metropolitan area.
The city of Portsmouth is the seacoast region's trade and cultural center and a major distribu-
tion market for points in northern New England.
The generally healthy state of Portsmouth's economy is reflected by its excellent employment
situation. As of July 1993, the unemployment rate was just 3.4% compared to the national average
of 6.9%. The civilian labor force in the Portsmouth labor market area numbered 14,600 in July
1993.
The majority of the labor force that would be employed at the shipyard for construction and
operation of the naval spent nuclear fuel area would be expected to reside within about 20 miles from
the shipyard. The calculated total population, labor force, and employment within this region for the
base year (1995) are presented in Table 4.1.3-1. Projections of employment and population for the
years beyond 1995 have not been presented because, as discussed in Section 5, the number of
additional jobs that might be created at the shipyard under any alternative could be small.
Table 4.1.3-1. Regional employment factors at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Regional Employment Regional Labor Force Regional Population
115,230 121,550 258,900
Portsmouth has the distinction of being the only natural deep-water harbor between Boston
and Portland, making it a major factor in New England seaborne commerce. Modern year-round port
facilities, an established Foreign Trade Zone, and reliable container ship service are all available.
The chief commodities transported through the port are petroleum products which comprise
over 90 percent of the marine commerce shipped. Large quantities of limestone (gypsum) and salt
are also received. The chief products shipped out of Portsmouth are petroleum products and steel
scrap. Commercial fishing in the area represents a multi-million dollar industry.
As of 1994, the region's largest employer, with approximately 4900 employees, was
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The shipyard is the largest employer in the states of Maine and New
Hampshire. The 1993 payroll amounted to $228 million.
Other contributing factors to the region's economic development include Pease Development
Authority in Newington, the University of New Hampshire in Durham, and the New Hampshire
Vocational/Technical College in Stratham.
The Kittery-York labor market area in York County had 86,165 people in the civilian labor
force as of July 1993 and an unemployment rate of 2.3% for July 1993. The majority of the civilian
labor force was employed in non-farm related jobs including manufacturing, transportation and
utilities, wholesale and retail trade, finances, services, and government.
Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations," requires federal agencies to identify and address, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their
programs and activities on minority and low-income populations. An adverse environmental impact is
a deleterious environmental impact determined to be unacceptable or above generally accepted norms.
A disproportionately high impact refers to an impact (or risk of an impact) in a low-income or
minority community that significantly exceeds that on the larger community. Data available from the
U. S. Census of 1990 have been used to develop information on the locations of minority and low-
income populations within approximately 50 miles of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, consistent with
the population data provided in Figure 4.1.3-3.
Figure 4.1.3-4 shows the locations of populations in which minority membership exceeds the
average within the 50-mile radius by more than 20 percentage points and populations which have
more than 50 percent minority members. These populations have been identified following an
approach developed by the Environmental Protection Agency which, for purposes of environmental
justice evaluation, defines minority communities as those which have percentages of minorities greater
than the average in the region analyzed (EPA 1994).
Figure 4.1.3-5 shows the locations of populations which have more than 25 percent of their
members living in poverty, reflecting a common definition of low-income communities (EPA 1993).
The U. S. Census Bureau characterizes persons in poverty as those whose income is less than a
"statistical poverty threshold." For the 1990 census, this threshold was based on a 1989 income of
$12,500 per household.
4.1.3.4 Cultural Resources
The Portsmouth-Kittery area has been part of the country's history since its very beginning.
Many structures and sites from the late seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries have
survived within the framework of new development over the years, especially in the city of
Portsmouth. Considered as a group, these preserved structures and sites constitute an aesthetic,
cultural, and educational resource, and a heritage with increasing value to future generations in the
Portsmouth-Kittery vicinity.
Figure 4.1.3-4. Minority population distribution within 50 miles of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Figure 4.1.3-5. Low-income population distribution within 50 miles of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
On November 17, 1977, the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, entered the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. The district
includes 54 acres of land, and 59 buildings and structures. The shipyard qualified for the Historic
Status because of its shipbuilding and repair function throughout the history of the United States, its
unique industrial site, and its historical and architecturally interesting buildings. From the early
colonial period to the present day, this shipbuilding and repair site served first, the British
government, later, the revolutionary colonies, and finally, the United States through the eras of sail,
steam, and atomic power. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard represents one of the country's earliest
complete industrial operations. (Navy 1993a)
There are no known cultural resources in the area of the site where naval spent nuclear fuel
would be stored. Due to the historic nature of the shipyard, there might be areas of archaeological
interest. In the past, artifacts from the early shipbuilding era have been uncovered during
construction excavation.
4.1.3.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources
The majority of the 303 acres (278 acres on the shipyard, 25 in Admiralty Village) that make
up the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is considered industrial use land. Although there are no exact
figures on the breakdown of land classifications, it is estimated that over 75% of the area is covered
by either buildings or pavement. The area within the shipyard where naval spent nuclear fuel would
be stored has low visual sensitivity since the area is an industrial site. Improved grounds on the
shipyard include the parade grounds, athletic fields and various lawns dispersed throughout. Semi-
improved grounds include several small picnic areas on the shipyard, the Jamaica Island Family
Recreation area, and the isolated grassy areas on the fringe of the streets and sidewalks. The major
areas of unimproved grounds (includes all other unpaved acreage not classified as improved or semi-
improved) include the two freshwater ponds and the small beach front on what was once Jamaica
Island. Because Admiralty Village is a housing facility, what little open space remained after
development was utilized for recreational purposes (e.g., tennis courts) or landscaped to enhance
aesthetic value.
4.1.3.6 Geology
4.1.3.6.1 General Geology.
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is located on Seavey Island in the
Seaboard Lowland Section of the New England Province. This section has a low, undulating
topography with low hills that are either bedrock with a light veneer of rocks or sediment left by
glaciers, or marine clay.
The general area near Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is relatively flat, rising gradually to the
foothills of the White Mountains and dissected by numerous streams and rivers that have, for
example, carved gorges 20 to 100 feet deep in the granite hills of the Mount Agamenticus-Ogunquit
area. What remains of the mountain range in the southern and western portions of the area are
scattered and isolated, high, smooth, weathered rock hills.
The thickness of the overburden of loose materials varies from 0 to 200 feet over the region,
with 80% of the area having less than 50 feet depth to bedrock. A predominant characteristic of the
soil in the area is the presence of the groundwater table near or at the surface. (Navy 1984)
4.1.3.6.2 Geologic Resources.
The physical geography of the general area near the Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard is characterized by bedrock prominences surrounded by and dissected by inlets and
stream courses of the Piscataqua River. Seavey Island, itself a rock knob, is one of these prominent
bedrock outcrops. The bedrock of Seavey Island is almost entirely the Kittery formation, a fine-
grained, lime-silicate material consisting of chalky sandstone formed under heat and pressure,
siltstone, and gray sandstone shale from approximately 400 million years ago. (Navy 1984)
There are no economic geologic resources at the shipyard.
4.1.3.6.3 Seismic and Volcanic Hazards.
Seismic risk related to structural damage may be
represented in the United States by a relative scale of 0 through 4, with Zone 0 not expected to
encounter damage and Zone 4 expected to encounter the greatest seismic risk. The shipyard is
located in Zone 2A according to the "Uniform Building Code" (UBC 1991). No volcanic hazards
exist. The Uniform Building Code seismic classification provides a means for a comparable
assessment of the seismic hazard between the alternate sites. If the Record of Decision identifies this
site for the interim storage of naval spent fuel, then a detailed seismic evaluation would be conducted.
More detailed information regarding the design basis considerations for storage of naval spent nuclear
fuel at the shipyard is provided in Attachment D.
Numerous small faults are to be seen in all rock units of the region. Quantitatively, their
abundance appears to be related to the brittleness of the rock containing them. Most involve
displacement of a few inches or feet. Only one was deemed to be sufficiently important to show on
the geologic map. This is the Portsmouth fault which forms the Rye-Kittery contact for
approximately 9 miles. There are so few outcrops of the fault zone, and these are poor, that no
attempt was made to calculate the fault displacement. It is not known if the fault continues across the
Piscataqua River and into Southeastern Maine. (Navy 1993b)
4.1.3.7 Air Resources
4.1.3.7.1 Climate and Meteorology.
The overall climate in the Portsmouth region is charac-
terized as variable. Weather conditions can change dramatically over short intervals. There are
alternating frontal systems on a day-to-day basis, widely ranging daily and annual temperatures, and
overall differences between the same seasons in different years.
Although this region is situated in the path of the prevailing westerly winds, the coastal area
experiences a variety of air changes over the course of a year. These include: cold dry arctic air
from the north, warm land air from the Gulf states, and cool, damp air from the Atlantic Ocean. It is
the combinations of, or switches between, these conditions that generally cause the area's
characteristic weather.
Weather conditions, especially temperature, in the Portsmouth general area are moderated by
its maritime setting. The average daily temperature ranges from 80yF in July to 13yF in January and
February. Temperatures can fluctuate outside this range, but they are not usually persistent.
Precipitation is fairly evenly distributed over the year, with 2.7 to 4.6 inches falling per
month for a 42.6-inch annual total. On the average, there are about 130 days each year having more
than a trace of precipitation. Most summer precipitation results from showers and, infrequently,
thunderstorms. Winter precipitation is generally associated with stormy conditions caused by air
masses moving up along the coast.
The cool Atlantic waters can produce extensive advection fog when warmer moist air is
carried over the cool water. With any persistent eastern component in the wind direction, the fog that
often lies just offshore during the summer can reach the coastline. This situation is increased during
the summer by local sea breezes. All months of the year have a fairly consistent occurrence of fog.
Localized and continuous fog was observed at the former Pease Air Force Base an average of 15% of
the time and was dense enough to restrict visibility to 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) or less, about 35% of
the time.
The predominant direction the wind blows from for the Portsmouth Harbor area is a
combination of the western, southwestern, and southern sectors for a combined total of 36% of the
time. Differences in wind characteristics occur on a seasonal basis with west-northwest winds
dominating in the winter, and southwest-southeast winds increasing in frequency during spring and
summer.
The wind speed averages 8.8 miles per hour in the Portsmouth Harbor area. Speeds greater
than 40 miles per hour, however, can occur any time of the year. During the winter, increased wind
speeds are normally caused by the northeast winds moving down the coast, while during the summer,
high winds are more often associated with thunderstorms of squall lines moving through the area.
(Navy 1991b)
4.1.3.7.2 Air Quality.
A Reasonably Available Control Technology analysis was conducted in
response to Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulations requiring Reasonably
Available Control Technology for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emission sources, such as the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which are located in ozone nonattainment areas. The Reasonably
Available Control Technology analysis was conducted for point and fugitive sources of VOC
emissions at the shipyard.
The shipyard is a large industrial complex that emits VOC emissions from a variety of
sources located throughout the site. Many of the sources of VOC are small and represent fugitive
losses of emissions. VOC emissions from these operations are best controlled through the
implementation of good housekeeping practices.
It has been determined that current VOC operations at the shipyard meet Reasonably
Available Control Technology. Continuation of current practices will ensure that VOC emissions
from the shipyard are maintained at or below Reasonably Available Control Technology levels.
(Navy 1991b)
An area can be designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as having air quality that
is better than defined by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (attainment) or as exceeding one
or more of those standards (nonattainment for one or more pollutants). The Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40, Part 81, states that the Air Quality Control Region for the shipyard is in
moderate nonattainment for ozone and is better than national standards for total suspended particulate
matter and SO2. The area has no specific classification for carbon monoxide and NO2. The nearest
Class I Area to the shipyard is at the Presidential Range - Dry River Wilderness Area, approximately
120 kilometers (75 miles) from the shipyard.
4.1.3.7.3 Existing Radiological Conditions Radiological facilities at all naval shipyards are
designed to ensure that there are no uncontrolled discharges of radioactivity in airborne exhausts.
Radiological controls are exercised to preclude exposure of working personnel to airborne radioactivity
exceeding federal limits. Air exhausted from radiological work facilities is passed through
high-efficiency particulate air filters and monitored during discharges. The annual airborne
radioactivity emissions from the shipyards do not result in any measurable radiation exposure to the
general public. Calculations of site radioactive airborne emissions for 1992 have been performed as
described in Attachment F. These calculations have shown that emissions of radionuclides from each
shipyard result in an effective dose equivalent of less than 0.1 mrem per year to any member of the
general public.
4.1.3.8 Water Resources
4.1.3.8.1 Surface Water.
A large portion of York County's surface runoff from precipitation is
drained by coastal basins reaching a short distance inland from the coast. The system of water
drainage channels used by runoff waters, varying from very small brooks to larger rivers, generally
are in a southeasterly direction towards the Atlantic Ocean, but tributaries naturally flow from all
directions into the larger channels. The remainder of the area is drained by larger river drainage
basins that reach further inland. The Saco River basin and the Piscataqua-Salmon Falls River basins
are the largest drainage systems, the Mousam and Kennebunk Rivers being considerably smaller. In
each of these drainage basins, surface water is held in swamps, ponds and lakes, both natural and
man-made, and by dams for storage, water supply, and development of power.
The largest quantities of surface runoff occur during March, April, and May with the lowest
occurring in August and September. On the average, runoff is approximately 22 inches of the 44
inches annual precipitation. The combination of spring rains and snow melt not only serve to greatly
increase stream flow, but also tend to replenish groundwater supplies.
The Piscataqua River, formed by the confluence of the Cocheco River and the Salmon Falls
River, flows southeasterly for 13 miles until it enters the ocean at Portsmouth Harbor. The entire 13
miles of the river is tidal. The river is one of the fastest flowing tidal waterways of any commercial
port in the northeastern United States. Due to abrupt channel changes and the strengths of flood and
ebb currents, hazardous cross-currents and eddies are found in the main channel passing north and
east of Pierce and New Castle Island. The average current velocity at full strength in the main harbor
varies from about 2.6 to 4.0 knots, whereas in the back channels, the velocity varies from less than 1
to 2 knots.
The tide at Portsmouth occurs twice daily. The average tidal range from Portsmouth Harbor
is 8.4 feet. The average mean spring range is 9.7 feet and the average mean tide level is 4.2 feet.
New Hampshire and Maine have an agreement to maintain acceptable water quality in the
Piscataqua River and both states regulate their effluent discharges into the river. The river is
designated by the state of New Hampshire as a Class B segment and by the state of Maine as Class
SB-1. New Hampshire Class B waters are acceptable for bathing, other recreational purposes, fish
habitat, and public water supply after adequate treatment. Maine Class SB-1 waters are suitable for
all clean water usages including water contact recreation, fishing, shellfish harvesting and
propagation, and fish and wildlife habitat. (Navy 1984)
The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM COMMUNITY-PANEL No. 230171 0008D) shows
that the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is not in a 100 or 500 year floodplain.
4.1.3.8.2 Groundwater.
Groundwater reserves constitute an important natural resource and are
especially important to the more populated communities in the area. The majority of the public water
supply in the area is taken from lakes and rivers, with groundwater providing the remainder of the
requirements.
As much as 35% of the total area of York County is underlain by soils which are generally
adapted to storage and yield of groundwater, but this figure is based only on surface data. In some
localities, marine clays overlie deeper gravels and may represent excellent future sources. When
favorable groundwater soils are measured to adequate depths, it is quite probable that the good
groundwater yield areas will shrink to a few percent of the total land areas. (Navy 1984)
4.1.3.8.3 Existing Radiological Conditions.
The normal activities associated with current naval
nuclear operations at all naval shipyards do not result in the intentional discharge of any radioactive
liquid effluent. However, there were occasions, primarily in the early 1960's, when measurable
levels of radioactivity were discharged with liquid effluent. In all cases, effluent releases were less
than permitted under the then current limits imposed by state and federal agencies.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation Programs has
performed monitoring of the water, plant life, aquatic life, and sediment in the vicinity of Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard. The purpose of the survey was to determine if operations related to U.S. Navy
nuclear warship activities resulted in releases of radionuclides which could contribute to significant
population exposure or contamination of the environment. "Radiological Survey of Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard, Kittery, Maine and Environs" (Semler 1991) discusses the most recent Environmental
Protection Agency monitoring data. Pertinent conclusions are as follows:
1. "No trace of Co-60 was detected in any samples at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. All
radioactivity detected in the 40 sediment samples is attributed to naturally occurring
radionuclides or fallout from past nuclear weapons testing.
2. Results of core sampling did not indicate any previous deposit of Co-60 in the sediment.
3. The water samples contained no detectable levels of radioactivity.
4. All radioactivity detected in the biota samples is attributed to naturally occurring
radionuclides or fallout.
5. External gamma ray measurements did not detect any increased radiation exposure to the
public above natural background levels.
6. Based on the survey, it was concluded that current practices regarding nuclear-powered
warship operations have resulted in no increases in radioactivity that would result in
major exposure or contamination of the environment."
Environmental monitoring is conducted by the shipyard. The results of this monitoring
program corroborate the Environmental Protection Agency's conclusions.
4.1.3.9 Ecological Resources
4.1.3.9.1 Terrestrial Ecology.
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is an isolated land mass that has been
highly developed. There is almost no remaining natural habitat in the shipyard area, with the major
exception being Clarks Island and the surrounding estuary. Even these areas are not unaffected by
activities on the shipyard and nearby industry.
The estuary around the shipyard could be classified as an intertidal river system which
supports a subtidal estuary community. The shoreline is characterized by steep, rocky banks and low-
lying marshlands. The shipyard mass would probably be classified as a rock outcrop ecosystem,
characterized by sparse vegetation of low-lying shrubs and herbs with scattered trees. The community
would be classified as an acidic shoreline outcrop.
The vegetation of the shipyard is made up primarily of trees, shrubs, and grasses that have
been planted for landscaping purposes. No naturally occurring species remain at this time. Because
Clarks Island has remained undeveloped, there is much greater diversity. It supports a variety of
herbaceous and shrub species including rushes, skunk cabbage, jewelweed, spike grass, swamp
azalea, bittersweet, witch hazel, and dogwood. Several lowland tree species are also growing on the
island, including red maple, sycamore, willow, and poplar.
The fringe marshes along the shore of Admiralty Village and along portions of Clarks Island
are dominated by two species, cord grass (Spartina alterniflora) and salt hay (Spartina patens). These
perennial grasses are year-round producers of vital organic matter that is distributed to the detrital
food chain or deposited in the marsh as part of the underlying peat marsh.
Another important plant species present within the Piscataqua River and abundant around the
shipyard is Zostera marina, commonly called eel grass. This submerged marine flowering plant is
vital to the health and productivity of the estuary. It provides habitat essential to the life cycle of
species such as crabs, fin fish, geese, and ducks. Eel grass beds are also preferred nursery habitat for
lobsters. Other valuable functions of eel grass beds include: sediment trapping, bottom stabilization,
and water filtration. This filtration ability also causes eel grass beds to be susceptible to algal blooms
resulting from excessive wastewater and fertilizer nutrients. Thus, eel grass is essential to the health
of the estuary and can also serve as an indicator of unhealthy conditions.
The limited amount of vegetation and the highly industrialized nature of the shipyard area
severely limit the availability of suitable habitat for most terrestrial species. There are some
mammals on the shipyard, primarily those species that tend to live in close association with man,
including: mice, squirrels, raccoons, and rabbits. There are white-tailed deer and moose in close
vicinity of the shipyard. However, there are no known resident species of deer or moose on the
shipyard. The Navy's 1993 "Natural Resources Management Plan for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard"
contains a complete listing of all mammals and reptiles found in the southeastern Maine-New
Hampshire region (Navy 1993b).
One notable ecological feature of the shipyard is its avian population. Bird species are most
abundant in the region during the months of April and September, coinciding with the migratory
seasons. The most common species in the area are the herring gull, American black duck,
doublecrested commorant, great blue heron, and American crow. The most abundant winter migrant
species are Canada geese, greater scaup, bufflehead, and common goldeye. Sea birds in general are
the most abundant, and the year-round species include herring gulls and great black-backed gulls.
The commom tern can also be found in large numbers during the late spring and summer. Osprey
have also been known to frequent the area and there is one known nesting pair in the Great Bay
Estuary vicinity. Appendix V. . of the Navy's Natural Resources Management Plan contains a
complete list of bird species common to the coastal region (Navy 1993b).
Clarks Island serves as a safe haven for a multitude of birds. It is an optimum habitat for
migratory species in that it has rocky shore, a small beach area, and an inland area of fairly dense
wood and low-lying vegetation. It would not be unreasonable to expect that during the early spring
and fall, Clarks Island would be utilized by a variety of songbird species along with the typical
coastal species mentioned above. (Navy 1993b)
4.1.3.9.2 Wetlands.
There are a few isolated marine wetlands in the vicinity of the shipyard and
a small freshwater wetland on the shipyard. There are two freshwater ponds on the southern portion
of the base, which have been characterized as palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, and permanently
flooded. There is a small area on the banks of the larger pond which is characterized as palustrine,
scrub shrub, broadleaf deciduous wetland. There are also two very minute areas southwest of the
freshwater ponds which have been characterized as palustrine emergent, persistent, seasonally flooded
wetlands. Two areas of estuarine wetlands are noted. Along the northeast shoreline, they are
classified as intertidal, unconsolidated shore, mud bottom, and regularly flooded. This same
classification has been given to the northern shoreline of Clarks Island. Finally, on the western side
of Clarks Island and on the southwestern corner of the shipyard, there are areas of estuarine intertidal
aquatic bed, algal, regularly flooded wetlands. It should be noted that these determinations were
based on stereoscopic analysis of aerial photographs and cannot be considered completely accurate
without ground truthing. (Navy 1993b)
Because natural drainage systems are limited, the shipyard has developed an extensive storm
water collection system and a drainage system to control flooding of the freshwater ponds. This
collection system eventually drains into the Piscataqua River, as does surface runoff. (Navy 1993b)
4.1.3.9.3 Aquatic Ecology.
The waters surrounding the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard support a
vast amount of marine life, from mammals to benthic organisms. Although the larger mammalian
species, like whales and dolphin, are not common to the estuarine waters of the Piscataqua River,
harbor seals can be seen throughout the Great Bay region in winter and spring. The estuary also
supports a number of commercially and recreationally important fin fish including smelt, winter
flounder, Atlantic silversides, alewives, and striped bass. A more complete list can be found in
Appendix V. . of the Navy's Natural Resources Management Plan (Navy 1993b).
These fish species rely heavily on a healthy benthic invertebrate population for survival.
Substrate type has a major impact on the number and variety of species that will be found in any
particular area. The areas around the shipyard that have a rocky bottom will be populated by
epibenthic organisms. Sandy or muddy bottoms can support both epibenthic and infaunal organisms.
Some of the more common shellfish species include lobster, softshell clams, and blue muscles. A
more detailed list of benthic infauna can be found in Appendix V. . of the Navy's Natural Resources
Management Plan (Navy 1993b).
The freshwater ponds on the shipyard also serve as a source of aquatic species. There is a
healthy benthic community within this ecosystem as well, including a variety of polychaete worms.
There is an abundance of vegetation in and around the ponds, which provides habitat for freshwater
fish. The most abundant fish species at this time is the smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui),
which were stocked at one time. (Navy 1993b)
4.1.3.9.4 Endangered and Threatened Species.
In the coastal area from Portland, Maine to
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, the threatened or endangered species include the Piping Plover, Roseate
Tern, Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Shortnose Sturgeon, and several species of whales and sea
turtles.
Appendix V. . of the Navy's Natural Resources Management Plan (Navy 1993b) includes a
list of the threatened and endangered species of southeastern Maine and New Hampshire. Both Maine
and New Hampshire officials were consulted and have determined that there is no evidence to suggest
that any threatened or endangered species reside on the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Marine
mammals are afforded full federal protection under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
(Navy 1993b).
4.1.3.10 Noise
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is an existing industrial-type environment characterized by noise
from truck and auto traffic; ship loading cranes and related diesel-powered equipment; and
continuously operating transmission lines for steam, fuel, water, and related compressors for those
and other liquids. In addition, new construction of buildings, reconstruction and rehabilitation
activities for streets, buildings, parking lots, and ships all contribute to a pervasively industrial
environment.
4.1.3.11 Traffic and Transportation
The Kittery-Portsmouth area is very accessible to vehicular traffic due to the proximity of
Interstate 95.
The major cities of Boston, Massachusetts and Portland, Maine are approximately one
hour away. U.S. Route 1, a primary road, runs parallel to I-95 in a north-south direction and
provides good access to the local communities along the seacoast. Because of the shipyard's location
on an island in the Piscataqua River, access is restricted to two federally owned bridges. The bridges
provide access directly to the shipyard's northern boundary from residential streets in the town of
Kittery. The majority of installation oriented traffic traverses five local secondary roadways: Walker
Avenue, Wenworth Street, and Shapleigh, Whipple, and Rogers Roads. Walker Avenue is the
primary access route to Bridge 1 and Whipple Road provides direct access to Bridge 2. Most
shipyard generated traffic is funneled from the two major highways, I-95 and U.S. Route 1, through
the local roadways and over the bridges.
Daily rail service, freight only, is provided to Portsmouth Naval Shipyard by the Boston and
Maine Railroad. The railroad connects Portsmouth with Manchester, New Hampshire; Portland,
Maine; and Boston, Massachusetts. Rail passenger service is available via AMTRAK connecting to
Boston.
Limited air service is provided at small airports at Eliot and Sanford, Maine, and Hampton
and Rochester, New Hampshire. Pease Airport provides the opportunity for commuter flights to
Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts and to other cities. In addition, Portsmouth is within one
hour travel time by car from major airports at Boston, Massachusetts and Portland, Maine.
The Portsmouth Harbor, about 3 nautical miles from deep water of the Atlantic Ocean, is
accessible year round via the Piscataqua River channel. The river channel is 35 feet deep below
mean low water and 400 feet wide. There are about 500 vessel trips each way through the channel
each year. About 150 of these trips involve ships with drafts greater than 18 feet, and more than 200
trips are made by tankers. A Coast Guard Station is located at New Castle near the harbor entrance.
(Navy 1984)
Naval spent nuclear fuel has been removed from Navy nuclear-powered ships and transported
to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Expended Core Facility (ECF) for examination and
evaluation as a routine part of their operating cycle. Naval spent nuclear fuel shipments from
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard to ECF were initiated in 1959. Since that time, 43 shipments of naval
spent nuclear fuel originating at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard have been made to ECF. The naval
spent nuclear fuel was shipped by rail. Attachment A provides a list of these shipments made to date
by year. Attachment A also contains detailed descriptions of the shipping containers used for naval
spent nuclear fuel shipments from shipyards.
4.1.3.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety
4.1.3.12.1 Occupational Radiological Health and Safety. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and the
Admiralty Village housing area are physically located in York County, Kittery, Maine on
government-owned land. The U.S. Government provides its own police and fire protection on the
shipyard, while Kittery provides police and fire protection for the Admiralty Village Housing Area.
(Navy 1984)
The Navy has well established and effective Occupational Safety, Health, and Occupational
Medicine programs at all of its shipyards. In regard to radiological aspects of these programs, the
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program policy is to reduce to as low as reasonably achievable the external
exposure to personnel from ionizing radiation associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants. These
stringent controls on minimizing occupational radiation exposure have been successful. No civilian or
military personnel at Navy sites have ever exceeded the federal accumulated radiation exposure limit
which allows 5 rem exposure for each year of age beyond age 18. Since 1967, no person has
exceeded the federal limit which allows up to 3 rem per quarter year and since 1980, no one has
received more than 2 rem per year from radiation associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants.
The average occupational exposure of each person monitored at all shipyards is 0.26 rem per year.
The average lifetime accumulated radiation exposure from radiation associated with naval nuclear
propulsion plants for all shipyard personnel who were monitored is 1.2 rem. (NNPP 1994a) This
corresponds to the likelihood of a cancer fatality of 1 in 2083.
The Navy's policy on occupational exposure from internal radioactivity is to prevent radiation
exposure to personnel from internal radioactivity. The limits invoked to achieve this objective are
one-tenth of the levels allowed by federal regulations for radiation workers. As a result of this
policy, no civilian or military personnel at shipyards have ever received more than one-tenth the
federal annual occupational exposure limit from internal radiation exposure caused by radioactivity
associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants.
For work operations involving the potential for spreading radioactive contamination, contain-
ments are used to prevent personnel contamination or generation of airborne radioactivity. The
controls for contamination are so strict that precautions sometimes have had to be taken to prevent
tracking contamination from fallout and natural sources into radiological areas because the
contamination control limits used in these areas were well below the levels of fallout and natural
contamination occurring outside in the general public areas. A basic requirement of contamination
control is monitoring all personnel leaving any area where radioactive contamination could possibly
occur. Workers are trained to survey themselves (i.e., frisk), and their performance is checked by
radiological control personnel. Frisking of the entire body is required, normally using sensitive hand-
held survey instruments. Major work facilities are equipped with portable monitors, which are used
in lieu of hand-held friskers. These stringent controls to protect the workers and the public from
contamination have proven effective in the past.
In 1991, researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, completed a very
comprehensive epidemiological study of the health of workers at the six naval shipyards and two
private shipyards that service the Navy's nuclear-powered ships (Matanoski 1991). This independent
study evaluated a population of 70,730 civilian workers over a period from 1957, beginning with the
first overhaul of the first nuclear-powered submarine, USS NAUTILUS, through 1981, to determine
whether there was an excess risk of leukemia or other cancers associated with exposure to low levels
of gamma radiation.
The Johns Hopkins study found no evidence to conclude that the health of people involved in
work on U.S. naval nuclear-powered ships has been adversely affected by exposure to low levels of
radiation incidental to this work. Additional studies are planned to investigate the observations and
update the shipyard study with data beyond 1981.
The radiation exposure during normal operations at each shipyard for workers who have their
radiation levels monitored is determined based on the annual radiation exposure of 0.26 mrem per
worker for all shipyards based on Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program Report NT-94-2 (NNPP 1994a).
The total number of shipyard personnel monitored for radiation exposure associated with the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program has been about 164,000.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. The radiation exposure to
transportation workers for all historical shipments is 16.6 person-rem, which statistically corresponds
to 0.0066 cancer fatalities. The maximum exposed individual (MEI) is a transportation worker,
since the workers are closer to the shipment for a longer time than any member of the general population.
Under the limiting assumption that the same worker is associated with every shipment for the entire
historical period, this person would receive a total exposure of 7.5 rem over the approximately
40-year period, or about 0.19 rem per year, which is within DOE standards for occupationally
exposed individuals. The radiation exposures to workers correspond to much less than one incident
cancer, which means that it is unlikely that there have been any past health impacts due to all
historical shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such shipments.
4.1.3.12.2 Occupational Non-radiological Health and Safety.
In the non-radiological
Occupational Safety, Health, and Occupational Medicine area, the Navy complies with the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulations. The Navy policy is to maintain a safe
and healthful work environment at all Navy facilities. Due to the varied nature of work at these
facilities, there is a potential for certain employees to be exposed to physical and chemical hazards.
These employees are routinely monitored during work and receive medical surveillance for physical
hazards such as exposure to high noise levels or heat stress. In addition, employees are monitored for
their exposure to chemical hazards such as organic solvents, lead, asbestos, etc., and where appropri-
ate are placed into medical surveillance programs for these chemical hazards.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. Approximately 0.028 fatalities are
estimated as a result of non-radiological sources (vehicle emissions) associated with all historical
shipments of spent nuclear fuel. This number includes both the workers and the general public.
Since this number is much less than one, it is unlikely that there has been any non-radiological health
impact due to the historical shipment of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such
shipments.
4.1.3.12.3 Public Radiological Health and Safety.
In order to quantify the exposures resulting
from normal shipyard radiological releases to the general public, detailed analyses were performed
based on very conservative estimates of radioisotopic releases since releases began. Attachment F
provides detailed annual release values used in the analyses.
The GENII computer code (Napier et al. 1988) was used to calculate exposures to human
beings due to the estimated radionuclide releases from normal operations at the shipyards.
A person on the shipyard boundary at the location where the largest exposures would be
received was used as the hypothetical maximally exposed off-site individual (MOI) for postulated
releases of radioactive material from stored fuel. The population data used to calculate population
exposures were taken from 1990 census data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Meteorology data
were obtained as described in Attachment F.
The hypothetical exposures calculated in Attachment F for the period 1995 through 2035 were
adjusted from an annual basis (1995) to the historical basis by multiplying by 38 years and by a factor
of 1.7 to take into consideration variations in the number of ships and operations.
The calculated accumulated exposures through 1995 to the general population within 50 miles
of the site (about 2.4 million people) are 0.65 person-rem. To provide perspective, the exposures
received due to natural radiation sources through 1995 are approximately 28 million person-rem,
based on 0.3 rem per person per year.
The results of environmental monitoring as described in Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program
Report NT-94-1 show that Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program activities had no distinguishable effect
on normal background radiation levels at site perimeters (NNPP 1994b).
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. The radiation exposure to the
general population for all historical shipments is 1.95 person-rem, which statistically corresponds to
0.00098 cancer fatalities.
All of the radiation exposures to the general population correspond to much less than one
incident cancer, which means that it is unlikely that there has been any past health impacts to the
public due to all historical shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such
shipments.
4.1.3.12.4 Public Non-radiological Health and Safety.
The Naval Medical Clinic located on
the shipyard is used by Navy personnel and dependents for their general medical care requirements.
Medical problems that require treatment not available at the clinic are taken care of at hospitals
located in York, Maine and Portsmouth, New Hampshire. (Navy 1984)
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. Approximately 0.028 fatalities are
estimated as a result of non-radiological sources (vehicle emissions) associated with all historical
shipments of spent nuclear fuel. This number includes both the workers and the general public.
Since this number is much less than one, it is unlikely that there has been any non-radiological health
impact to the public due to all historical shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history
of such shipments.
4.1.3.13 Utilities and Energy
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has its own Security, Fire, Public Works, and Supply
departments.
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard obtains its electricity from Central Maine Power, but has a
central power plant capable of producing all of the required steam and electricity. Potable water is
furnished by the town of Kittery, Maine. (Navy 1984)
The 1993 electrical power usage at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard was 76,262 megawatt hours.
The water usage at the shipyard was approximately 668 million gallons for 1993.
4.1.3.14 Materials and Waste Management
The shipyard's sewage is pumped to the town of Kittery's sewage treatment system.
Disposition of solid waste is as follows: 58% is recycled, 38% is burned for energy recovery at the
Maine Energy Recovery Incinerator, and 4% is landfilled at licensed off-site facilities. Bulk aqueous
waste is collected and shipped for off-site licensed treatment/disposal. Containerized hazardous waste
is collected, consolidated, characterized, and labeled at the shipyard's state-licensed Hazardous Waste
Storage Facility prior to manifesting to off-site licensed treatment/disposal/energy recovery facilities.
Oily waste is presently contracted for off-site disposal; however, an oily waste treatment system has
been installed and should be on line in the near future. The effluent from treatment operations will be
discharged to the sewer, and the separated waste oil will be sold through the Defense Logistics
Agency.
Solid radioactive waste materials are packaged in strong, tight containers, shielded as
necessary, and shipped to burial sites licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or a State
under agreement with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Shipyards and other shore facilities
are not permitted to dispose of radioactive solid wastes by burial on their own sites. During 1992,
approximately 74 cubic yards of routine low-level radioactive waste containing 2 curies were shipped
from Portsmouth Naval Shipyard for burial.
Waste which is both radioactive and chemically hazardous is regulated under both the Atomic
Energy Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as "mixed waste." Within the
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, concerted efforts are taken to avoid combining radioactive and
chemically hazardous substances so as to minimize the potential for generation of mixed waste. For
example, these efforts include avoiding the use of acetone solvents, lead-based paints, lead shielding
in disposal containers, and chemical paint removers. Radioactive wastes, including those containing
chemically hazardous substances, are handled in accordance with long-standing Program radiological
requirements. Such handling includes solidification to immobilize the radioactivity, separation of the
radioactive and chemically hazardous substances, removal of liquids from solids, and other simple
techniques. A determination is then made as to whether the resulting waste is hazardous. As a result
of Program efforts to avoid the use of chemically hazardous substances in radiological work, Program
activities typically generate only a few hundred cubic feet of mixed waste each year. This small
amount of mixed waste, along with limited amounts of mixed waste from Program work conducted
prior to 1987, will be stored pending the licensing of commercial treatment and disposal facilities.
4.1.4 PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD: PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII
4.1.4.1 Overview
The Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard is located in the Southeast Loch of Pearl Harbor, Oahu,
Hawaii (Figures 4.1.4-1 and 4.1.4-2). This shipyard consists of approximately 350 acres. The island
of Oahu is the third largest (593 square miles) in the State of Hawaii and is the population center of
the Hawaiian Islands. The 1990 Oahu population of approximately 820,000 residents comprised over
75% of the state's total, and the City and County of Honolulu are the fastest growing areas in the
state, with the highest population densities. Honolulu is the state capital, largest city, and center of
business and government.
Pearl Harbor is a principal harbor for U.S. Navy activities and is the base of Navy operations
for the mid-Pacific. Figure 4.1.4-3 provides a Pearl Harbor site map. Its water surface area of about
8 square miles and its docks accommodate all classes of Navy vessels up to the largest aircraft
carriers. Ship maintenance and repairs are performed for all types of vessels in Pearl Harbor Naval
Shipyard's dry docks and docking areas. All of the docks are located in the Southeast Loch area with
the exception of Dry Dock 4 which is adjacent to the Pearl Harbor main channel. (Navy 1991c)
4.1.4.2 Land Use
There are six major land use activities at Pearl Harbor. Commander Naval Base Pearl Harbor
(NAVBASE) hosts various operational commands that include the Headquarters for the Pacific Fleet
and the Headquarters of the Third Fleet.
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard provides the maintenance and repair services noted above. The
Naval Supply Center provides fuel, ammunition, other supplies, and storage. The other primary land
use activities are for: the Submarine Base; the Public Works Center; and the U.S. Naval Inactive
Ship Maintenance Detachment.
Land use is designated as urban by the State of Hawaii, and military by the City and County
of Honolulu. As can be seen in Figure 4.1.4-2, the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard is surrounded by
Figure 4.1.4-1. Location of Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Hawaii. Figure 4.1.4-2. Pearl Harbor vicinity with average annual rainfall gradient. Figure 4.1.4-3. Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard site map. military land with Hickam Air Force Base in the southern quadrant and naval installations occupying
the remaining three quadrants. Other activities commonly occurring in the Pearl Harbor area are
commercial fishing, tourism, and recreational facilities, along with a few retail complexes.
(Navy 1990b)
4.1.4.3 Socioeconomics
Oahu has experienced a high rate of economic growth over the past decade due to its location
in the Pacific, which benefits both military defense and visitor industries. These two industries have
surpassed the two historical bases of the Hawaiian economy, which are pineapple and sugar cultiva-
tion and production.
Oahu's visitor industry continues to prosper. Visitor arrivals to the state are projected by the
Department of Business and Economic Development to reach 7.8 million visitors by 2000, with Oahu
capturing approximately half of the visitors. This would represent a visitor growth rate on Oahu of
about 3.4 percent compounded annually.
Defense expenditures cushion Oahu's economy from the seasonal and cyclical fluctuations of
tourism. The military is also a primary source of highly skilled employment opportunities for
civilians. Pearl Harbor has the largest concentration of Department of Defense employment in the
state, with about 7,700 shore-based Navy personnel and 10,900 civilians, for a total of 18,600 at the
naval base. In 1993, shipyard employment accounted for about 5,000 of the total. The population
distribution within 50 miles of Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard is shown in Figure 4.1.4-4.
Unemployment figures in the state and for the island of Oahu are among the lowest in the
nation. Oahu is at a 2.3 percent unemployment level as of October 1989, reflecting the strong local
economy that prevailed in the latter half of the 1980s. With the outlook favorable for continued
expansion, job growth is currently expected to equal or better the 2 to 3 percent historical annual
increase in Oahu's work force. (Navy 1990b)
Figure 4.1.4-4. Population distribution within 50 miles of Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. The majority of the labor force that would be employed at the shipyard for construction and
operation of the naval spent nuclear fuel area would be expected to reside on the island of Oahu. The
calculated total population, labor force, and employment within this region for the base year (1995)
are presented in Table 4.1.4-1. Projections of employment and population for the years beyond 1995
have not been presented because, as discussed in Section 5, the number of additional jobs that might
be created at the shipyard under any alternative could be small.
Table 4.1.4-1. Regional employment factors at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard.
Regional Employment Regional Labor Force Regional Population
393,260 407,530 812,190
Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations," requires federal agencies to identify and address, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their
programs and activities on minority and low-income populations. An adverse environmental impact is
a deleterious environmental impact determined to be unacceptable or above generally accepted norms.
A disproportionately high impact refers to an impact (or risk of an impact) in a low-income or
minority community that significantly exceeds that on the larger community. Data available from the
U. S. Census of 1990 have been used to develop information on the locations of minority and low-
income populations within approximately 50 miles of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, consistent
with the population data provided in Figure 4.1.4-4.
Figure 4.1.4-5 shows the locations of populations which have more than 50 percent minority
members within the 50-mile radius. Minorities make up approximately 55 percent of the total
population in this area. These populations have been identified following an approach developed by
the Environmental Protection Agency which, for purposes of environmental justice evaluation, defines
minority communities as those which have percentages of minorities greater than the average in the
region analyzed (EPA 1994).
Figure 4.1.4-6 shows the locations of populations which have more than 25 percent of their
members living in poverty, reflecting a common definition of low-income communities (EPA 1993).
The U. S. Census Bureau characterizes persons in poverty as those whose income is less than a
Figure 4.1.4-5. Minority population distribution within 50 miles of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard.
Figure 4.1.4-6. Low-income population distribution within 50 miles of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard.
"statistical poverty threshold." For the 1990 census, this threshold was based on a 1989 income of
$12,500 per household.
4.1.4.4 Cultural Resources
Pearl Harbor has been the site of several important historical events and changes, and is most
noted for its role in the Pacific Theatre Defense during World War II. Physical sites near and in
Pearl Harbor have been designated as historically significant, including several battleships sunk during
the December 7, 1941 Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, as well as sites where planes were downed.
Naval Base Pearl Harbor was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1964, and in 1974, it
was listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The Pearl Harbor area has been heavily modified over the past 70 years. This includes
extensive changes that were intended to stabilize the marshy shorelines. Most surface evidence of any
pre-military occupation has long since been obliterated. Due to the historic nature of the shipyard,
there might be areas of archaeological interest. However, there are no archaeological sites located
within the boundary of the shipyard. Many native Hawaiian cultural resources exist on the Hawaiian
Islands. There are three Hawaiian fish ponds located outside the boundary, in West Loch and in East
Loch, that have been recommended for preservation. (Navy 1990b)
4.1.4.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources
The Pearl Harbor viewshed is dominated by the sweeping mountain to sea vistas characteristic
of nearshore areas on Oahu. The City and County of Honolulu's Coastal View Study (1987) states
that the "flat terrain and the built up military facilities surrounding Pearl Harbor provide very little
public viewing opportunities into this bay." (Navy 1990b) The shipyard area, itself, is an industrial
setting. The area within the shipyard where naval spent nuclear fuel would be stored has low visual
sensitivity since the area is an industrial site.
4.1.4.6 Geology
4.1.4.6.1 General Geology.
Oahu's topography consists of two parallel mountain ranges running
in a northwest to southeast direction, separated by a plateau. A large, relatively level coastal plain
borders the plateau at the south. The Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, for the most part, lies within this
coastal plain.
Land near the waterfront areas is very flat, rising slightly inland from Kamehameha Highway.
There are moderate slopes which exist around the rim of the Makalapa Crater.
4.1.4.6.2 Geologic Resources.
There are several different soil associations within the Pearl
Harbor basin. The majority of the U.S. Navy lands surrounding Pearl Harbor are comprised of the
Lualualei - Fill Land - Ewa Soil Association. This association consists of well-drained, fine textured,
and moderate fine textured soils on fans and in drainage ways on the southern and western coastal
plains of Oahu. The soils are formed from sediment deposited by streams, and are nearly level to
moderately sloping. This soil association makes up about 14 percent of the island of Oahu.
Pearl Harbor estuary occurs on the coastal sedimentary plain of southern Oahu. The harbor
consists of three lochs which join to form a single channel entrance. Streams, springs, and ground-
water flow into the harbor; the estuary was formed by freshwater flows that have eroded the coastal
plain and retarded coral growth. Since their initial formation, the lochs have been altered by sea-level
change, erosion, and silt. The west side of the harbor is composed mostly of limestone reef material
known as the Ewa Plain. The east side of the harbor consists mainly of compacted volcanic ash.
Hard, dense volcanic rock forms the bulk of the rock material to the north. Marine and terrestrial
sediments occur around the perimeter of the harbor. (Navy 1990b)
Much of the land area in Pearl Harbor is fill land created by dredge spoils since 1930. A
major dredging effort took place between 1940 and 1943, when dredged material was placed in the
Waipio Peninsula and adjacent to Kuahua Island (now Kuahua Peninsula). This landfill resulted in the
present shoreline configuration. (Navy 1990b) There are no economic geologic resources at the
shipyard.
4.1.4.6.3 Seismic and Volcanic Hazards.
Seismic risk related to structural damage may be
represented in the United States by a relative scale of 0 through 4, with Zone 0 not expected to
encounter damage and Zone 4 expected to encounter the greatest seismic risk. The Pearl Harbor
Naval Shipyard is located in Zone 1. (UBC 1991) Except for the island of Hawaii itself, the
Hawaiian Islands are not a highly seismic area. Even on Hawaii, most of the earthquakes are of
volcanic origin and do little or no damage, although a few have been quite severe. The Uniform
Building Code seismic classification provides a means for a comparable assessment of the seismic
hazard between the alternate sites. If the Record of Decision identifies this site for the interim storage
of naval spent fuel, then a detailed seismic evaluation would be conducted. More detailed information
regarding the design basis considerations for storage of naval spent nuclear fuel at the shipyard is
provided in Attachment D.
From review of Tsunami Wave Runup Heights in Hawaii by Harold G. Loomis, Hawaii
Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawaii, May 1976, past inundation levels from waves produced
by seismic events have been about 3 feet above Mean Sea Level (msl). In addition, a memorandum
from the U.S. Army Engineering Division, Pacific Ocean, dated 10 January 1986 indicated projected
seismically induced wave elevations for the 10-year, 100-year, and 500-year event to be 0.8 feet, 2.0
feet, and 3.8 feet, respectively, for adjacent coastal areas. (Navy 1990b)
Pearl Harbor is fully protected from ocean waves and swells. Waves propagating through the
15,000-foot entrance channel are completely reduced. The normal tides in Hawaii occur twice daily,
with pronounced daily inequalities. Maximum high, or spring tides, reach 2.5 feet above msl. Storm
water level rise is caused by four components: astronomical tides, rise from atmospheric pressure
reduction (pressure setup), wind setup, and wave setup. Based on information obtained from the
Naval Western Oceanography Center, maximum hurricane storm water level rise from setup under
the worst conditions foreseeable would be approximately 12 feet above the existing tide level. Thus,
maximum total storm water level rise would be approximately 14.5 feet above msl. Under the
maximum foreseeable conditions, any material stored in the dry dock area of Pearl Harbor Naval
Shipyard, which is about 8 feet above msl, could be flooded to a level of about 6.5 feet.
In September 1992, the worst storm in Pacific history, Hurricane Iniki, hit Kauai with
sustained 145-mile-per-hour winds and gusts to 175 miles per hour. Oahu, 80 miles to the east,
received comparatively minor damage to that experienced on Kauai. The last hurricane to strike the
state prior to Iniki was Iwa in 1982 but it did not cause nearly as much damage.
The Hawaiian Islands were formed by volcanic eruptions; however, the only active volcanic
area is on the island of Hawaii. There are no volcanic hazards on the island of Oahu. (Doell and
Dalrymple 1973).
4.1.4.7 Air Resources
4.1.4.7.1 Climate and Meteorology.
With the exception of minor differences in temperature and
rainfall at Red Hill and Camp Stover, all of the activities at Pearl Harbor lie within the same climatic
zone and are subject to the same weather conditions.
The predominant winds are the northeast tradewinds, which prevail most of the year,
particularly from February to November. Thus, the predominant winds would carry any airborne
contaminant from the shipyard to the unpopulated ocean region adjacent to Pearl Harbor on the south.
At certain times of the year, south to southwest winds and mild offshore breezes can be expected.
Winds with speeds up to 49 miles per hour may occasionally strike from the north or northeast but
rarely reach gale velocities. The south winds are usually accompanied by wet tropical air and
frequent heavy showers. During the summer months, periods of no wind occur occasionally but do
not persist for more than a day or two. During the winter months, winds tend to be less predictable,
with longer periods of light and variable winds, and occurrences of strong southerly or "Kona" winds
associated with weather fronts and storms.
The rainfall at Pearl Harbor is light and generally inadequate to sustain lawns and other
vegetation for at least nine months of the year. Very heavy precipitation may occasionally fall during
times of southerly winds, and this may cause local flooding because of the nature of the soils and the
relatively low elevation. The mean annual rainfall for the naval base is between 20 and 30 inches,
dependent upon the incidence of the occasional heavy southerly rains mentioned previously. The
topography and meteorology of Oahu are responsible for the unusual annual rainfall gradient shown in
Figure 4.1.4-2.
Temperatures vary by season as well as daily in the Pearl Harbor region. Highs of 87yF to
89yF are not uncommon during mid-afternoon in summer. Night temperatures during the same
season fall between 72yF and 76yF. During the winter and early spring, daytime highs will reach
between 76yF and 78yF, and nighttime lows may fall to the low 60's or high 50's. The lows are
generally caused by a shallow blanket of cold air that pours down from the mountains and spreads out
over the lowlands during periods of low-velocity tradewinds. The low temperatures are almost
invariably accompanied by a heavy dewfall which is not normal to the region.
4.1.4.7.2 Air Quality.
An area can be designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as
having air quality that is better than defined by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (attain-
ment) or as exceeding one or more of those standards (nonattainment for one or more pollutants).
The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 81, states that the Air Quality Control Region for the
shipyard is better than national standards for total suspended particulate matter and SO2. The area has
no specific classification for ozone, carbon monoxide, and NO2.
Air quality on Oahu is primarily affected by the prevalence of the northeast tradewinds which
prevail approximately 80 percent of the year, particularly from February to November. Air
monitoring of the naval base area conducted in 1989 showed that there was no NAAQS violation.
Thus, air quality was in attainment with federal standards. The state standards, which are more
restrictive in many cases than federal requirements, were exceeded only at intersections having high
traffic during peak rush hours. (Navy 1990b) The nearest Class I Area is Haleakala National Park
188 kilometers (117 miles) from the shipyard.
4.1.4.7.3 Existing Radiological Conditions.
Radiological facilities at all naval shipyards are
designed to ensure that there are no uncontrolled discharges of radioactivity in airborne exhausts.
Radiological controls are exercised to preclude exposure of working personnel to airborne
radioactivity exceeding federal limits. Air exhausted from radiological work facilities is passed
through high-efficiency particulate air filters and monitored during discharges. The annual airborne
radioactivity emissions from the shipyards do not result in any measurable radiation exposure to the
general public. Calculations of site radioactive airborne emissions for 1992 have been performed as
described in Attachment F. These calculations have shown that emissions of radionuclides from each
shipyard result in an effective dose equivalent of less than 0.1 mrem per year to any member of the
general public.
4.1.4.8 Water Resources
4.1.4.8.1 Surface Water.
Pearl Harbor receives surface runoff from seven watersheds. The
Waikele Watershed (54 square miles) is the largest of the seven, comprising nearly 40 percent of the
Pearl Harbor Basin. It is drained primarily by Waikele Stream, which discharges the heaviest
sediment load of any of the Pearl Harbor Basin streams.
The Waiawa Watershed (24.6 square miles) consists of forest, agricultural, and urban land. It
is drained by Waiawa Stream and its tributaries into Middle Loch. The Waimalu Watershed (17.7
square miles) is drained by the Waimano, Waimalu, and Kalauao Streams, which discharge into the
East Loch of Pearl Harbor. The watershed is primarily undeveloped forest land with established
urban areas on the coastal plain and lower slopes. The Aiea and Halawa Watersheds are drained by
the Aiea and Halawa Streams, respectively, which discharge into East Loch. They are similar in
nature to the Waimalu Watershed. Honouliuli Stream drains the Honouliuli Watershed and discharges
intermittently into West Loch. The watershed consists primarily of agricultural and forested land.
Only 20 percent of the Ewa Beach Watershed drains into Pearl Harbor. Sediment discharges into
Pearl Harbor from the flat lowland area adjacent to West Loch are negligible.
Of the eight streams discharging into Pearl Harbor, two are intermittent: Honouliuli Stream
and Aiea Stream. The remaining are perennial streams (Waikele, Waiawa, Waimano, Waimalu,
Kalauao, and Halawa), which have their headwaters in the high rainfall area of the Koolau Range.
All streams drain the forested and agricultural lands and pass through urban areas before entering
Pearl Harbor. Some flooding occurs along the major streams throughout much of the basin but is not
a major problem on the Naval Complex, affecting only a narrow strip of land along Aiea stream.
(Navy 1990b)
An assessment in 1988 by the State of Hawaii, Department of Health indicated that Pearl
Harbor's large drainage basin in central Oahu and the abundant rainfall in headwaters of the eight
streams that flow into the harbor are major contributors to the harbor's role as a catchment for
nonpoint runoff from agricultural, urban, and military sources. Violations of water quality criteria
were noted for nitrogen, phosphorus, turbidity, and fecal coliforms in the harbor water.
(Navy 1990b)
The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) COMMUNITY-PANEL No. 150001 0110 C shows
that the floodplain is "undetermined" for the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. Based on FIRM maps
and topographical maps of areas approximately 3 miles away, the conceptual interim storage location
is in the 100-year floodplain. However, based on experience, the location considered for naval spent
nuclear fuel is not in a high-hazard area (as defined by Title 10, Part 1022 of The Code of Federal
Regulations for floodplains) which is an area where frequent flooding occurs.
4.1.4.8.2 Groundwater.
The major source of potable water on Oahu is dependent on a
hydrologic cycle that starts with evaporation of water from the ocean, condensation of that vapor into
rain, and the capture of that rain by the Koolau Mountains. A portion of the rainwater percolates
down into the porous ground to become groundwater. The groundwater is a limited resource found
in three types of groundwater bodies, or aquifers: major basal aquifers, which consist of freshwater
floating on heavier seawater sealed from the ocean by layers of dense, hard volcanic rock; perched
aquifers in which rainfall is caught behind impermeable dikes at high elevations; and groundwater
standing on impermeable beds of volcanic ash, thus creating springs. Naval Base Pearl Harbor
receives most of its water from the Koolau Aquifer and a small portion from the Waianae Aquifer,
which are basal aquifers located in south central Oahu, partially within the Pearl Harbor Water
Management Area (PHWMA). As of 1990, the military had an allocation of 28.125 million gallons
per day (mgd) from the PHWMA, of which 22.670 mgd was authorized for the Navy. Over 4 mgd
of this allocation was not used in 1988. Approximately 3 mgd of this unused allocation is attributed
to the Navy. The quality of groundwater from the above aquifers is good. (Navy 1990b)
4.1.4.8.3 Existing Radiological Conditions.
The normal activities associated with current naval
nuclear operations at all naval shipyards do not result in the intentional discharge of any radioactive
liquid effluent. However, there were occasions, primarily in the early 1960's, when measurable
levels of radioactivity were discharged with liquid effluent. In all cases, effluent releases were less
than permitted under the then current limits imposed by state and federal agencies.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation Programs has
performed monitoring of the water, plant life, aquatic life, and sediment in the vicinity of Pearl
Harbor Naval Shipyard. The purpose of the survey was to determine if operations related to U.S.
Navy nuclear warship activities resulted in releases of radionuclides which could contribute to
significant population exposure or contamination of the environment. "Radiological Surveys of the
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Environs" (Callis 1987) is the most recent Environmental Protection
Agency report which discusses data taken in 1985. Pertinent conclusions from this report are as
follows:
1. "Neither harbor water nor drinking water from surrounding areas contain detectable
cobalt-60 or tritium radioactivity.
2. Very small quantities of cobalt-60 were found in sediment and in two aquatic vegetation
samples from the harbor. No cobalt-60 was found in any of the aquatic life samples.
3. The levels of cobalt-60 in the harbor sediment have decreased significantly since the
surveys of 1966 and 1968 and are consistent with those expected from the radioactive
decay of the amounts found in the 1966 and 1968 surveys.
4. The current practice of restricting the release of radioactive material into the harbor to
the minimum practical has been effective and should allow the cobalt-60 radioactivity
remaining in harbor sediment to continue to decrease.
5. The levels and locations of radioactivity identified and the limited media in which it was
found show that operations related to nuclear-powered warship activities resulted in no
release of radionuclides having adverse effects on public health or the environment."
Environmental monitoring is conducted by the shipyard. The results of this monitoring
program corroborate the Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion.
4.1.4.9 Ecological Resources
4.1.4.9.1 Terrestrial Ecology.
Because the Pearl Harbor area has been disturbed extensively and
for such a long period of time, the vegetation is dominated by introduced or alien species. Vegetation
consists of maintained landscaped specimens or, on unmaintained areas, mangrove thickets and weedy
scrub. The few native taxa which occur on these unmaintained areas such as 'uhaloa (Waltheria
indica) and 'ilima (Sida fallax) occur throughout the Hawaiian Islands and the Pacific in similar
environmental habitats. No plants considered threatened or endangered occur on this location.
Fauna in the Pearl Harbor area is also typically urban. In general, various feral and domestic
cats and dogs, rodents, and exotic bird species are found in the area. No endemic land birds were
recorded during the course of the field surveys completed in 1989. (Navy 1990b)
4.1.4.9.2 Wetlands.
There are several wetland areas at Pearl Harbor identified in the East Loch,
Middle Loch, and West Loch, as well as an area on the Waipio Peninsula. There is also a Pearl
Harbor National Wildlife Refuge. These are habitats for endangered species of birds, principally the
Hawaiian Coot and Hawaiian Stilt. A cooperative agreement established between the U.S. Navy, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the State of Hawaii,
Department of Land and Natural Resources, protects these wetlands. (Navy 1990b)
4.1.4.9.3 Aquatic Ecology.
Most of the Pearl Harbor marine community structure is character-
ized by four zones: sand-rubble zone, algal-mud zone, channel wall zone, and channel floor mud-silt
zone. Sedimentation is the major factor determining the constituents of the Pearl Harbor marine
community. Hence, stony corals, which are especially sensitive to high sediment loads, have not
been observed. Predominant biota include the sea cucumber (Ophiodesoma spectabilis), a species
commonly found in areas of high organic particulate input; benthic (bottom dwelling) algae; sponges;
Sabellid (feather duster) worms; Serpulid worm tubes; and various benthic shrimps and crabs.
(Navy 1990b)
4.1.4.9.4 Endangered and Threatened Species.
Most of the land at Pearl Harbor Naval
Shipyard has been urbanized, and the present vegetation consists almost exclusively of introduced
plant species. Consequently, no federally or state listed threatened or endangered species or critical
habitats are known to exist within the confines of Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. Because the area has
been greatly disturbed and the native vegetation completely eliminated, there is little remaining
terrestrial habitat of any consequence. Small tracts of weedy fields and isolated pockets of disturbed
secondary vegetation within the station's boundaries provide limited habitat for introduced species of
birds and rodents. Some migratory birds as well as endemic and indigenous waterfowl species may
occasionally frequent the shoreline areas of Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, but none are considered
residents of the activity. The mangrove stands and associated shoreline habitats act as nurseries to a
variety of fish and wildlife and aid in shoreline stabilization and erosion control. (Navy 1989)
Marine mammals are afforded full Federal protection under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act of 1972. As noted above, there are wetland areas in the Pearl Harbor Complex that include a
National Wildlife Refuge and provide habitats for endangered species of birds, principally the
Hawaiian Coot (Fulica americana alai) and Hawaiian Stilt [Himantopus mexicanus (=himantopus)
knudseni].
4.1.4.10 Noise
Noise sensitive locations in the Pearl Harbor area have been identified as the U.S.S. Arizona
Memorial, U.S.S. Arizona Memorial Visitor Center, U.S.S. Bowfin Park, Marina Restaurant,
Richardson Recreation Center, and existing or planned residential areas of Ford Island. Field noise
measurements were taken at these locations on December 5, 1989; previous measurements also were
taken at some of these locations. All appear to meet state and federal noise standards at present.
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard is an existing industrial environment characterized by noise from truck
and auto traffic, ship loading cranes and related diesel-powered equipment, and continuously
operating transmission lines for steam, fuel, water, and related compressors for these and other
liquids. In addition, new construction of buildings, reconstruction and rehabilitation activities for
streets, buildings, parking lots, and ships all contribute to the noise associated with an industrial
environment. (Navy 1990b)
4.1.4.11 Traffic and Transportation
The main portion of traffic into and out of the base is an aggregate of commuting traffic to
work, residential related traffic, and service traffic related to the business of the base.
Kamehameha
Highway is the primary access route to the base from the Ewa/Pearl City/central Oahu direction.
Both Kamehameha Highway and Interstate Highway H-1 provide access to the Naval Base from the
Honolulu direction. (Navy 1990b)
The Honolulu International Airport provides scheduled passenger and cargo air service to
major connecting hubs. In addition, Hickam Air Force Base services the military.
Naval spent nuclear fuel has been removed from Navy nuclear-powered ships and transported
to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Expended Core Facility (ECF) for examination and
evaluation as a routine part of their operating cycle. Naval spent nuclear fuel shipments from Pearl
Harbor Naval Shipyard to ECF were initiated in 1962. Since that time, 20 shipments of naval spent
nuclear fuel originating at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard have been made to ECF. The naval spent
nuclear fuel containers were transported by ship to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard where the
containers were then transported to ECF by rail. Attachment A provides a list of these shipments
made to date by year. Attachment A also contains detailed descriptions of the shipping containers
used for naval spent nuclear fuel shipments from shipyards.
Traffic circulation related to Naval Base Pearl Harbor is determined by the working and
residential populations of the base, by the geometry of the existing roadways and intersections, and by
the access gates into the base.
4.1.4.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety
4.1.4.12.1 Occupational Radiological Health and Safety. The Navy has well established and
effective Occupational Safety, Health, and Occupational Medicine programs at all of its ship-
yards. In regard to radiological aspects of these programs, the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program policy is to
reduce to as low as reasonably achievable the external exposure to personnel from ionizing radiation
associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants. These stringent controls on minimizing occupational
radiation exposure have been successful. No civilian or military personnel at Navy sites have ever
exceeded the federal accumulated radiation exposure limit which allows 5 rem exposure for each year
of age beyond age 18. Since 1967, no person has exceeded the federal limit which allows up to
3 rem per quarter year and since 1980, no one has received more than 2 rem per year from radiation
associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants. The average occupational exposure of each person
monitored at all shipyards is 0.26 rem per year. The average lifetime accumulated radiation exposure
from radiation associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants for all shipyard personnel who were
monitored is 1.2 rem. (NNPP 1994a) This corresponds to the likelihood of a cancer fatality of 1 in
2083.
The Navy's policy on occupational exposure from internal radioactivity is to prevent radiation
exposure to personnel from internal radioactivity. The limits invoked to achieve this objective are
one-tenth of the levels allowed by federal regulations for radiation workers. As a result of this
policy, no civilian or military personnel at shipyards have ever received more than one-tenth the
federal annual occupational exposure limit from internal radiation exposure caused by radioactivity
associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants.
For work operations involving the potential for spreading radioactive contamination, contain-
ments are used to prevent personnel contamination or generation of airborne radioactivity. The
controls for contamination are so strict that precautions sometimes have had to be taken to prevent
tracking contamination from fallout and natural sources into radiological areas because the
contamination control limits used in these areas were well below the levels of fallout and natural
contamination occurring outside in the general public areas. A basic requirement of contamination
control is monitoring all personnel leaving any area where radioactive contamination could possibly
occur. Workers are trained to survey themselves (i.e., frisk), and their performance is checked by
radiological control personnel. Frisking of the entire body is required, normally using sensitive hand-
held survey instruments. Major work facilities are equipped with portable monitors, which are used
in lieu of hand-held friskers. These stringent controls to protect the workers and the public from
contamination have proven effective in the past.
In 1991, researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, completed a very
comprehensive epidemiological study of the health of workers at the six naval shipyards and two
private shipyards that service the Navy's nuclear-powered ships (Matanoski 1991). This independent
study evaluated a population of 70,730 civilian workers over a period from 1957, beginning with the
first overhaul of the first nuclear-powered submarine, USS NAUTILUS, through 1981, to determine
whether there was an excess risk of leukemia or other cancers associated with exposure to low levels
of gamma radiation.
The Johns Hopkins study found no evidence to conclude that the health of people involved in
work on U.S. naval nuclear-powered ships has been adversely affected by exposure to low levels of
radiation incidental to this work. Additional studies are planned to investigate the observations and
update the shipyard study with data beyond 1981.
The radiation exposure during normal operations at each shipyard for workers who have their
radiation levels monitored is determined based on the annual radiation exposure of 0.26 mrem per
worker for all shipyards based on Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program Report NT-94-2 (NNPP 1994a).
The total number of shipyard personnel monitored for radiation exposure associated with the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program has been about 164,000.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. The radiation exposure to
transportation workers for all historical shipments is 16.6 person-rem, which statistically corresponds
to 0.0066 cancer fatalities. The maximum exposed individual (MEI) is a transportation worker, since
the workers are closer to the shipment for a longer time than any member of the general population.
Under the limiting assumption that the same worker is associated with every shipment for the entire
historical period, this person would receive a total exposure of 7.5 rem over the approximately
40-year period, or about 0.19 rem per year, which is within DOE standards for occupationally
exposed individuals. The radiation exposures to workers correspond to much less than one incident
cancer, which means that it is unlikely that there have been any past health impacts due to all
historical shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such shipments.
4.1.4.12.2 Occupational Non-radiological Health and Safety.
In the non-radiological
Occupational Safety, Health, and Occupational Medicine area, the Navy complies with the Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Administration Regulations. The Navy's policy is to maintain a safe and
healthful work environment at all naval facilities. Due to the varied nature of work at these facilities,
there is a potential for certain employees to be exposed to physical and chemical hazards. These
employees are routinely monitored during work and receive medical surveillance for physical hazards
such as exposure to high noise levels or heat stress. In addition, employees are monitored for their
exposure to chemical hazards such as organic solvents, lead, asbestos, etc., and where appropriate are
placed into medical surveillance programs for these chemical hazards.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. Approximately 0.028 fatalities are
estimated as a result of non-radiological sources (vehicle emissions) associated with all historical
shipments of spent nuclear fuel. This number includes both the workers and the general public.
Since this number is much less than one, it is unlikely that there has been any non-radiological health
impact due to the historical shipment of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such
shipments.
4.1.4.12.3 Public Radiological Health and Safety.
In order to quantify the exposures resulting
from normal shipyard radiological releases to the general public, detailed analyses were performed
based on very conservative estimates of radioisotopic releases from 1961 through 1992.
Attachment F provides detailed annual release values used in the analyses.
The GENII computer code (Napier et al. 1988) was used to calculate exposures to human
beings due to the estimated radionuclide releases from normal operations at the shipyards.
A person on the shipyard boundary at the location where the largest exposures would be
received was used as the hypothetical maximally exposed off-site individual (MOI) for postulated
releases of radioactive material from stored fuel. The population data used to calculate population
exposures were taken from 1990 census data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Meteorology data
were obtained as described in Attachment F.
The hypothetical exposures calculated in Attachment F for the period 1995 through 2035 were
adjusted from an annual basis (1995) to the historical basis by multiplying by 38 years and by a factor
of 1.7 to take into consideration variations in the number of ships and operations.
The calculated accumulated exposures through 1995 to the general population within 50 miles
of the site (about 0.8 million people) are 1.9 person-rem. To provide perspective, the exposures
received due to natural radiation sources through 1995 are approximately 9.3 million person-rem,
based on 0.3 rem per person per year.
The results of environmental monitoring as described in Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program
Report NT-94-1 show that Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program activities had no distinguishable effect
on normal background radiation levels at site perimeters (NNPP 1994b).
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. The radiation exposure to the
general population for all historical shipments is 1.95 person-rem, which statistically corresponds to
0.00098 cancer fatalities.
All of the radiation exposures to the general population correspond to much less than one
incident cancer, which means that it is unlikely that there has been any past health impact to the
public due to all historical shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such
shipments.
4.1.4.12.4 Public Non-radiological Health and Safety.
The military is responsible for
providing health care services for its personnel and dependents. Navy families receive both in-patient
and out-patient care at Tripler Army Medical Center. Services are also provided at on-base clinics
and dispensaries. Active-duty personnel are required to use military health care facilities. In
addition, military dependents have the option of going to private providers and being partially
reimbursed for the cost.
The Oahu Civil Defense Agency is responsible for developing, preparing, and assisting in the
implementation of civil defense plans and programs to protect the safety, health, and welfare of island
residents during disasters and emergency situations. However, responsibility for military personnel
and dependents on the base rests with the Navy.
Fire protection within Naval Base Pearl Harbor is provided by the Federal Fire Department.
A Mutual Aid Pact between the federal (military) fire departments and the Honolulu Fire Department
affords dual coverage in times of emergencies.
Naval Base Pearl Harbor is under federal jurisdiction; therefore, federal authorities are
normally responsible for providing all needed police service. The City and County of Honolulu
Police Department, however, is responsible for traffic control in areas around the base. The closest
police station is located in Pearl City. (Navy 1990b)
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. Approximately 0.028 fatalities are
estimated as a result of non-radiological sources (vehicle emissions) associated with all historical
shipments of spent nuclear fuel. This number includes both the workers and the general public.
Since this number is much less than one, it is unlikely that there has been any non-radiological health
impact to the public due to all historical shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history
of such shipments.
4.1.4.13 Utilities and Energy
4.1.4.13.1 Water Consumption. Naval Base Pearl Harbor receives most of its water from the
Koolau Aquifer and a small portion from the Waianae Aquifer, which are basal aquifers located in
south central Oahu, partially within the Pearl Harbor Water Management Area (PHWMA). In early
1989, a Water Management Plan for the PHWMA was proposed by the Commission on Water and
Resource Management (CWRM) to preserve and manage the Koolau and Waianae basal aquifers and
the Schofield high-level aquifer. One important portion of the Water Management Plan recommended
that the sustainable yield for the PHWMA be revised downward from the then current 225 million
gallons of water per day (mgd) to 195 mgd. The purpose of the revision was to eliminate possible
shrinkage of the aquifer in the PHWMA from over-withdrawal. Actual use in 1989 totaled 198.298
mgd, of which the military portion was about 13 percent. The major water users in the PHWMA are
the Board of Water Supply (87.5 mgd) and the Oahu Sugar Company (78.6 mgd). In the revised
plan, water allocation to the military is not decreased. The stated management policy of the CWRM
is that "total allocation of authorized use will not at any time exceed sustainable yield." As of 1990,
the military had an allocation of 28.125 mgd from the PHWMA, of which 22.670 mgd was
authorized for the Navy. Of the total allocation to the U.S. Navy, Koolau Aquifer provides
20.333 mgd, and Waianae Basal Aquifer provides 2.337 mgd. (Navy 1990b)
4.1.4.13.2 Electricity Consumption.
The electrical power service for the Pearl Harbor Naval
Complex is provided by the Hawaiian Electric Company. The Hawaiian Electric Company power
grid on the island of Oahu consists of three power plants with a total capacity of 1,271 MW, plus two
plants in planning or under construction totaling 390 MW. The peak island demand in 1989 was
approximately 1,090 MW.
The power plants are located at Kahe, Waiau, and downtown Honolulu and are inter-
connected via 138-kV transmission and 46-kV sub-transmission circuits. The Pearl Harbor Naval
Complex is served via three 46-kV feeders, each from a separate 80-MVA transformer at the
Makalapa substation, which is part of the island's 138-kV grid. The feeders serve two Hawaiian
Electric Company substations located on the base (Puuloa and Kuahua), which step the voltage down
to 11.5 kV, and serve two normally separated 11.5-kV networks.
One of the 46-kV feeders serves only the Puuloa substation. The second serves only the
Kuahua substation. The third serves both substations. Any one feeder has the capacity to carry the
entire Pearl Harbor load or approximately 57 MVA. In addition to the three feeders from the
Makalapa substation, there are two alternate 46-kV circuits, one a dedicated spare, from the Waiau
power plant.
The Puuloa substation consists of two 20/33-MVA transformers located in the Pearl Harbor
Naval Shipyard area and serves the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Naval Station Pearl Harbor, and
Ford Island. The Kuahua substation consists of two 15/20-MVA transformers located in the
Submarine Base Pearl Harbor area and serves the Submarine Base Pearl Harbor and Naval Supply
Center Pearl Harbor areas.
4.1.4.13.3 Fuel Consumption.
One major type of energy use is vehicular fuel consumption. No
estimates are available to differentiate vehicle fuel use at Pearl Harbor from other areas. The ferry
system consumed 152,088 gallons of diesel fuel in 1988. An occupancy rate of 1.5 persons per
vehicle was used, so the ratio of fuel consumed per person per trip was 0.144 gallon of diesel fuel per
person crossing. The second major source of energy consumption originates in buildings. The
analysis of building energy use is based on standards for energy consumption per unit of designated
building floor area by type of building and the geographical location.
4.1.4.13.4 Wastewater Systems and Discharges.
Sewage at the Pearl Harbor Naval Complex
is collected and treated in several separate systems. Most of the sewage generated by U.S. Navy
shore activities and family housing areas receives secondary treatment at Navy-operated sewage
treatment plants. The largest volume is treated at the Fort Kamehameha Sewage Treatment Plant
which serves the Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Naval Supply Center
Pearl Harbor Complexes, Camp Smith, Navy and Air Force housing areas, Hickam Air Force Base,
and other adjacent military areas.
4.1.4.13.5 Energy Conservation.
To minimize the use of fossils fuels and conserve energy, the
military has adopted conservation criteria for new construction and major renovation projects. The
policies used under the conservation criteria focus on meeting design energy targets, based on Btu/per
square foot/per year (Btu/sf/yr). Guidelines are provided for ventilation, insulation, and energy life
cycle cost of structures. (Navy 1990b)
4.1.4.14 Materials and Waste Management
The City and County of Honolulu's HPOWER (Honolulu Program of Waste Energy
Recovery) "garbage-to-energy" facility at Campbell Industrial Park is currently in full operation and
burning roughly 1,500 to 1,800 tons per day, which is most of the combustible rubbish generated on
the island of Oahu.
Approximately 20 percent (by weight) of the refuse handled by the HPOWER
facility is reduced to ash and other residue which requires landfill disposal.
There are two city and county landfills: the Kapaa Landfill in Kailua (Windward Oahu) and
the Waimanalo Gulch Landfill in Nanakuli (Leeward Oahu). The Kapaa Landfill has reached full
capacity, and plans are underway to locate a new site in Windward Oahu. The Nanakuli facility,
which opened in September 1989, is programmed for 1,000 tons per day for seven to eight years.
According to the city, the facility should be able to accommodate projected needs for at least 15 years
and maybe longer. (Navy 1990b)
Solid radioactive waste materials are packaged in strong, tight containers, shielded as
necessary, and shipped to burial sites licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or a State
under agreement with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Shipyards and other shore facilities
are not permitted to dispose of radioactive solid wastes by burial on their own sites. During 1992,
approximately 110 cubic yards of routine low-level radioactive waste containing a total of 1 curie
were shipped from the shipyard for burial.
Waste which is both radioactive and chemically hazardous is regulated under both the Atomic
Energy Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as "mixed waste." Within the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program, concerted efforts are taken to avoid commingling radioactive and
chemically hazardous substances so as to minimize the potential for generation of mixed waste. For
example, these efforts include avoiding the use of acetone solvents, lead-based paints, lead shielding
in disposal containers, and chemical paint removers. Radioactive wastes, including those containing
chemically hazardous substances, are handled in accordance with long-standing Program radiological
requirements. Such handling includes solidification to immobilize the radioactivity, separation of the
radioactive and chemically hazardous substances, removal of liquids from solids, and other simple
techniques. A determination is then made as to whether the resulting waste is hazardous. As a result
of Program efforts to avoid the use of chemically hazardous substances in radiological work, Program
activities typically generate only a few hundred cubic feet of mixed waste each year. This small
amount of mixed waste, along with limited amounts of mixed waste from Program work conducted
prior to 1987, will be stored pending the licensing of commercial treatment and disposal facilities.
4.1.5 KENNETH A. KESSELRING SITE: WEST MILTON, NEW YORK
4.1.5.1 Overview
The Kenneth A. Kesselring Site of the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL) is located in
the mid-eastern sector of New York State as shown on Figure 4.1.5-1. The Site is located near West
Milton in Saratoga County, New York at 43y2'28" north latitude and 73y57'13" west longitude. This
United States Government owned reservation consists of over 3900 acres centered about 15 miles
north of the city of Schenectady and about 8 miles west of Saratoga Springs. The Site includes three
operating naval nuclear propulsion prototype plants and support facilities. The Site also includes one
prototype plant that is in the process of being permanently shut down; one of the three operating
plants is currently scheduled to be shut down in 1996. All the operating facilities are located in a
secure area near the center of the reservation (see Figure 4.1.5-2). A more detailed illustration of the
site is provided in Figure 4.1.5-3.
4.1.5.2 Land Use
All the land within the Site perimeter is owned by the Department of Energy (DOE). There
are no permanent residents within this area. The surrounding region, within 50 miles of the Site,
contains a population of about 1,150,000 as obtained from the 1990 census.
Most of the land surrounding the Site is either wooded or is used for farming, with some
residential areas. Both dairy farms and agricultural farms are located in the immediate vicinity of the
reservation.
The West Milton area is located within the undulating transition zone between the Adirondack
Highlands and the Hudson-Mohawk Lowlands physiographic provinces. The area is characterized by
a series of irregular northwest-southwest trending topographic steps that descend from the highlands
southeasterly towards the lowlands.
Figure 4.1.5-1. Kesselring Site vicinity map. Figure 4.1.5-2. Kesselring Site location map. Figure 4.1.5-3. Kesselring Site map. Ground elevations in the vicinity of the reservation range from 400 to 900 feet above mean
sea level. The Glowegee Creek, its various tributaries, and the Crook Brook drain the reservation.
The developed portion of the reservation, which contains the prototype plants, consists of approxi-
mately 50 acres (see Figure 4.1.5-2). The terrain surrounding the Site forms a partial bowl having a
bottom diameter of about 2000 feet and a maximum height of 150 feet. The Site is essentially
flat-lying with ground elevations ranging from 480 to 490 feet. The western half of the Site is
surrounded by elliptical hills approximately 600 feet in elevation. Drainage from the Site is eastward,
to the Glowegee Creek.
4.1.5.3 Socioeconomics
As of 1993, the Kesselring Site employed about 1,450 civilian workers, and about 1,250
naval personnel worked at the Site.
The only industry within 4 miles of the Site is the Cottrell Paper Company, located in Rock
City Falls, about 3 miles from the Site.
The region surrounding the Site, within 50 miles, contains a population of about 1,150,000 as
obtained from the 1990 census. Figure 4.1.5-4 provides a population distribution rose centered on
the Site and lists the total population within concentric rings covering a 50-mile radius from the Site.
The majority of the labor force that would be employed at the Site for construction and
operation of the naval spent nuclear fuel area would be expected to reside within about 20 miles from
the Site. The calculated total population, labor force, and employment within this region for the base
year (1995) are presented in Table 4.1.5-1. Projections of employment and population for the years
beyond 1995 have not been presented because, as discussed in Section 5, the number of additional
jobs that might be created at the Site under any alternative could be small.
Table 4.1.5-1. Regional employment factors at the Kesselring Site.
Regional Employment Regional Labor Force Regional Population
165,830 176,600 373,970
Figure 4.1.5-4. 50-mile population distribution around the Kesselring Site. Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations," requires federal agencies to identify and address, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their
programs and activities on minority and low-income populations. An adverse environmental impact is
a deleterious environmental impact determined to be unacceptable or above generally accepted norms.
A disproportionately high impact refers to an impact (or risk of an impact) in a low-income or
minority community that significantly exceeds that on the larger community. Data available from the
U. S. Census of 1990 have been used to develop information on the locations of minority and low-
income populations within approximately 50 miles of the Kesselring Site, consistent with the
population data provided in Figure 4.1.5-4.
Figure 4.1.5-5 shows the locations of populations in which minority membership exceeds the
average within the 50-mile radius by more than 20 percentage points and populations which have
more than 50 percent minority members. These populations have been identified following an
approach developed by the Environmental Protection Agency which, for purposes of environmental
justice evaluation, defines minority communities as those which have percentages of minorities greater
than the average in the region analyzed (EPA 1994).
Figure 4.1.5-6 shows the locations of populations which have more than 25 percent of their
members living in poverty, reflecting a common definition of low-income communities (EPA 1993).
The U. S. Census Bureau characterizes persons in poverty as those whose income is less than a
"statistical poverty threshold." For the 1990 census, this threshold was based on a 1989 income of
$12,500 per household.
4.1.5.4 Cultural Resources
Historically, the Kesselring Site reservation was used for agricultural purposes. Although old
farmhouse foundations, grove sites, stone walls, and land fences exist on the Kesselring Reservation,
there are no known archaeological, cultural, or Native American sites in the secure area of the
Kesselring Site (USAEC 1972). There are no historic structures on the Site that are potentially
eligible for or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NPS 1991).
The Kesselring Site is located in an area of moderately undulating topography at the northern
edge of the Hudson-Mohawk Lowlands. Most of the Site facilities including the prototype reactor
plants are located within a fenced security area. This security area and adjacent parking lots are
located near the center of the Government reservation. (UE&C 1973) Since the balance of the
reservation consists of wooded lands, there is very little public viewing opportunity of the Site
facilities from the boundaries of the Government reservation. The area within the Site fenced security
region where naval spent nuclear fuel would be stored has low visual sensitivity since the area is an
industrial site.
4.1.5.6 Geology
4.1.5.6.1 General Geology.
In 1973, a Site evaluation and foundation engineering investiga-
tion
were conducted for the Kesselring Site (UE&C 1973) to establish suitable parameters for the analysis
and design of the S8G prototype structures. A prior evaluation of the Site was conducted for the
Modifications and Addition to Reactor Facilities. In both investigations, the local and regional
geology and seismicity of the West Milton area were examined through a literature search, a detailed
subsurface investigation, and a geophysical survey involving refraction and cross-hole velocity
measurements. Major soil boring, sampling, and laboratory testing for the S8G Site evaluation were
reported in various documents (UE&C 1973; EDCE 1974a; EDCE 1974b). Additional boring
information and a geophysical field investigation performed for the Modifications and Addition to
Reactor Facilities project were also utilized in the S8G Site evaluation. A 1974 Site geology
evaluation was also conducted and a report issued (DGC 1974).
4.1.5.6.2 Geologic Resources.
At Kesselring, unconsolidated materials, primarily of glacial
origin, overlie bedrock. The thickness of these materials or overburden sequence is variable, ranging
from 0 to several hundred feet. The overburden sequence, in ascending order, consists of three basic
kinds of depositional units: glacier debris, lake, and ice-contact/outwash deposits. Deposits from
glaciers overlie much of the bedrock and form the elliptical hills (drumlins) throughout most of the
reservation. The glacier deposits are a dense and poorly sorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel,
and boulders. Thinly stratified lake clay and silt deposits are mapped over the reservation's
southeastern quadrant. The ice-contact/outwash deposits mostly consist of stratified sands and
gravels. The ice contact/outwash deposits, characterized by low clay and silt content, have better
aquifer potential than the silt-and-clay-rich glacier and lake deposits.
Bedrock geology is also variable at the reservation and consists of crystalline rocks, Potsdam
Sandstone, Galway Formation (dolomites and sandstones), Gailor Dolomite, Trenton/Amsterdam/
Lowville Limestones, and Canajoharie Shale. The Canajoharie Shale underlies the majority of the
reservation. This black shale generally is considered a poor aquifer and its productivity is dependent
on the presence or absence of fractures. Also, its water may contain naturally occurring hydrogen
sulfide.
At the Site, approximately 20 to 30 feet of overburden deposits overlie the Canajoharie Shale.
These deposits consist of layers of deposits from glaciers and lakes. Locally, these deposits have
been altered as the result of facility construction. Generally, groundwater exists from 5 to 10 feet
below the ground surface. Groundwater flows easterly, toward the nearby Glowegee Creek.
There are no economic geologic resources at the Site.
4.1.5.6.3 Seismic and Volcanic Hazards.
In 1973, a seismicity evaluation of the Kesselring Site
was conducted (UE&C 1973). An additional investigation was conducted in 1981 (EDCE 1981).
The following is a summary of their findings.
Three branch faults exist in the vicinity of the Site: The West Galway, the East Galway, and
the Rock City Falls faults. These branch faults are the lines of demarcation between the various
bedrock formations in the immediate area. The East Galway branch lies approximately 3500 feet
northwest of the Site and is believed to be the predominant influence on the earthquake loading for
Site facilities. The two Galway faults are end branches of the Hoffman's Ferry fault.
Seismic risk related to structural damage may be represented in the United States by a relative
scale of 0 through 4, with Zone 0 not expected to encounter damage and Zone 4 expected to
encounter the greatest seismic risk. The Site is located in Zone 2A according to the "Uniform
Building Code" (UBC 1991). The Uniform Building Code seismic classification provides a means for
a comparable assessment of the seismic hazard between the alternate sites. If the Record of Decision
identifies this site for the interim storage of naval spent fuel, then a detailed seismic evaluation would
be conducted. More detailed information regarding the design basis considerations for storage of
naval spent nuclear fuel at the Site is provided in Attachment D.
Data accumulated indicate that the maximum intensity earthquake for the region within a
100-mile radius of the Site had a value of VII. The most recent earthquake of that intensity occurred
at Lake George, New York, on April 30, 1931. It is postulated that this event had an epicenter at the
point where the Rock City Falls fault meets the Hoffman's Ferry fault. Since the West Galway and
East Galway branch faults are extensions of the Hoffman's Ferry fault, an earthquake of similar
intensity might occur anywhere along the East Galway fault within the lifetime of the Site structures.
Several earthquakes having an intensity VIII or greater have occurred at distances greater than
100 miles from the Site. However, due to attenuation effects, the ground motion at the Site
associated with these earthquakes has not been greater than that equivalent to an intensity VI. The
most recent event occurred in 1983 at Newcomb, New York (about 75 miles northwest of the Site)
and was of intensity VI.
Details regarding the seismic characteristics of the area and the design bases seismic
evaluations performed for the Kesselring Site are provided in the "Site Geology Evaluation Report -
S8G for Kesselring Site" (UE&C 1973) and in "Geotechnical Site Investigation, Kesselring Site, West
Milton, New York" (EDCE 1981).
There are no volcanic hazards in the vicinity of the Site.
4.1.5.7 Air Resources
4.1.5.7.1 Climate and Meteorology.
The east-central part of New York State, in which the West
Milton area is located, is situated at the northern end of the Hudson River Valley and is approximate-
ly 150 miles inland from the Atlantic coastline and about 200 miles south of the Canadian border.
The climate of the region is primarily continental in character, but is subjected to some modification
by the Atlantic Ocean. The moderating effect on temperatures is more pronounced during the warmer
months than in winter when outbursts of cold air sweep down from Canada. In the warmer seasons,
temperatures rise rapidly in the daytime, but also fall rapidly after sunset so that the nights are
relatively cool. Occasionally, there are extended periods of oppressive heat up to a week or more in
duration.
During the winter months, winds are generally from the west or northwest. During the
warmer months, the winds are from the south. Wind velocities are moderate, and generally average
less than 10 mph. Destructive winds (i.e., winds in excess of 80 mph) occur infrequently and
tornadoes are rare. Tornadoes are rare in the region served by the Albany, New York weather
station.
The mean monthly temperature of the region is about 50yF. Daily extremes can range from
-30yF in the winter months to 100yF in the summer. On an annual basis, the mean daytime relative
humidity values range from 50 to 80 percent. During the summer months, relative humidity values
frequently approach 100 percent during the night.
Total yearly precipitation averages about 36 inches. The average yearly snowfall is about 58
inches and the maximum snowfall in 24 hours is about 22 inches. On the average, a frost depth of
about 3 feet can be expected.
For weather reporting purposes, the West Milton area of northeastern New York is included
in the National Weather Service Zone Forecast for Saratoga County. The principal weather recording
location is at the Albany, New York airport. Its elevation is 275 feet above mean sea level. Because
of the proximity of West Milton to Albany, temperature data for the Site should differ little from the
Albany data. The two locations are generally within one or two degrees of each other, with West
Milton tending to have lower temperatures.
4.1.5.7.2 Air Quality.
The principal sources of industrial gaseous effluents from the Kesselring
Site are two 21-million, one 30-million, and one 110-million Btu/hr steam generating boilers. The
number 2 fuel oil that is used to fire all of the boilers contains less than 0.5 weight percent sulfur.
Combustion gases from the boilers are released through three elevated exhaust stacks. Operations
such as ozalid reproduction, carpenter shops, welding hoods, paint shop, and industrial cleaning
processes constitute other permitted point sources of airborne effluents. All point source emissions
conform to the applicable state and federal clean air standards. Sulfur emitted from all boiler units is
monitored via analysis of fuel sulfur content and reported to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on a quarterly basis in compliance with the EPA's New Source Performance Standards in The
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60. Sulfur emissions from the boilers are well within the
EPA's New Source Performance Standards emission standard for stationary combustion installations.
All other industrial emission sources at the Kesselring Site do not require monitoring under terms of
the current New York State permits due to the very low levels of the emissions.
An area can be designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as having air quality that
is better than defined by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (attainment) or as exceeding one
or more of those standards (nonattainment for one or more pollutants). The Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40, Part 81, states that the Air Quality Control Region for this site is in marginal
nonattainment for ozone and is better than national standards for total suspended particulate matter
and SO2. The area has no specific classification for carbon monoxide and NO2.
The nearest Class I area is at Lye Brook Wilderness, Suarderland, Vermont, which is 46
miles from the Site.
4.1.5.7.3 Existing Radiological Conditions.
Radiological facilities at the Kesselring Site are
designed to ensure that there are no discharges of radioactivity in airborne exhausts in excess of
prescribed operational limits. Radiological controls are exercised to preclude exposure of working
personnel to airborne radioactivity exceeding federal limits. Air exhausted from radiological work
facilities is passed through high-efficiency particulate air filters and monitored during discharg-
es. The annual airborne radioactive emissions from Kesselring Site do not result in any measurable radiation
exposure to the general public. As described in the "Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Environmental
Monitoring Report for Calendar Year 1992" (KAPL 1992), the estimated 1992 radiation exposure to
off-site individuals attributed to radioactive air emissions from Kesselring Site operations was less
than 1 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency standards given in Subpart H of 40CFR61
(CFR 1989). In order to quantify the risk of normal (non-accident) Kesselring Site radiological
airborne releases to the general public, detailed analyses were performed based on conserva-
tive estimates of radioisotopic releases in the exhaust air. In 1992, the airborne radioactivity emissions from
the Kesselring Site totaled about 2 curies (KAPL 1992).
4.1.5.7.4 Existing Non-radiological Conditions.
New York State emission standards for all
permitted emission sources at the Kesselring Site, with the exception of the site boilers, are stipulated
in the individual permits for these sources. State regulations provide specific guidance on what types
of emissions require a permit. Compliance with the operating permit is the responsibility of the
permit holder under the condition that all planned changes in operating permit conditions require prior
review and approval by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).
In addition, all operating permits are reviewed and renewed at least every 5 years.
Stationary combustion sources such as the Site's boilers are not specifically regulated by
NYSDEC, but fall under the federal New Source Performance Standards in The Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40, Part 60. Compliance with these standards is accomplished by utilization of
number 2 fuel oil certified by the vendor that it contains less than 0.5 percent sulfur. Reports
documenting fuel use and sulfur content are provided to the EPA Region II office on a quarterly
basis.
4.1.5.8 Water Resources
The hydrology information contained herein was extracted from two independent evaluations.
One was performed by the U. S. Geological Survey in November 1951. The second survey was
performed in 1955. Additional hydrological surveys were performed in 1975 (Moody 1975;
DGC 1975), and 1985 and 1986 (DGC 1986).
4.1.5.8.1 Surface Water.
Most of the Site is drained by the Glowegee Creek, which meanders
through rolling farmlands and woodlands to a junction with Kayaderosseras Creek at a point
approximately 1 mile east of West Milton. The quality of the water in Kayaderosseras Creek and
Glowegee Creek is satisfactory for public water supply and most industrial purposes, although
Glowegee Creek is not used for these purposes. The average stream flow measured at the U. S.
Coast and Geodetic Survey gaging station 0.5 mile downstream of the Site is 41 cfs. The range of
elevation for Glowegee Creek is approximately 580 feet above mean sea level at the western entry to
the Site to about 380 feet above mean sea level at its junction with the Kayaderosseras Creek. Swamp
area and natural surface storage in the basin are small, but the soils and the unconsolidated materials
below the soils can hold a considerable volume of groundwater. A number of perennial springs exist
in the area. There are no records indicating flooding of the Site.
The Kayaderosseras Creek empties into Saratoga Lake and ultimately, by way of Fish Creek,
into the Hudson River. Kayaderosseras Creek rises in the Kayaderosseras Range on the southern
edge of the Adirondack Mountains. The basin above West Milton ranges approximately 1600 feet in
elevation and contains a sizeable aggregate area of swamps.
The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM COMMUNITY-PANEL No. 360 722 B) shows that
the Kesselring Site is not in a 100 or 500 year floodplain.
4.1.5.8.2 Groundwater.
At the Site, the overburden sequence, consisting of glacier and lake
deposits, and the underlying Canajoharie Shale generally form poor aquifer systems. In the West
Milton area, neither of these systems are designated as sole source aquifers by the EPA or as
primary/principal aquifers by New York State.
The dense glacial deposits and fine-grained lake deposits have characteristically low
permeabilities in comparison to ice-contact/outwash deposits. Historically, both the glacier and lake
deposits produce very low volumes of groundwater. At the Site, shallow water table mapping shows
that the groundwater gradient is low. This low gradient combined with the low permeability of the
glacial deposits indicates that the groundwater flow rate is very low, on the order of 5 to 10 feet/year.
Also, water table mapping indicates that the Glowegee Creek, approximately 200 to 1000 feet east of
the operating facilities boundary, forms an aquifer boundary.
The source of potable water is a well field, located on the far eastern side of the Site, and is
composed of six wells which draw water from both deep and shallow aquifers. Monitoring of
groundwater from the Site service water well field has shown that all chemical constituents measured
are within the New York State drinking water standards (KAPL 1992). This well field, which is
adjacent to the Kayaderosseras Creek, is underlain by two sand and gravel aquifers. The uppermost
aquifer exists under water-table conditions and extends to a depth of approximately 30 feet below
ground surface. The lowermost aquifer exists under artesian head pressure with the potentiometric
surface rising several feet above the static water-table surface. The depth of the artesian aquifer is
approximately 55 to 100 feet below the ground surface. Recharge to the water-table aquifer during
simultaneous water withdrawal comes primarily from the Kayaderosseras Creek, and to a lesser
degree from Crook Brook. (DGC 1986)
There are 19 monitoring wells within the operating area. These recently installed wells are
used to provide depth-to-groundwater information, related water table mapping, and water quality
assessment. Test borings on the reservation have generally showed the water table to be within 5 to
10 feet of the ground surface. The test boring data also indicate that the configuration of the water
table is, for the most part, a replica of the configuration of the surface topography, but at a lower
elevation and somewhat softened in relief.
4.1.5.8.3 Existing Radiological Conditions.
The liquid effluent environmental monitoring
program at the Kesselring Site consists of radiological monitoring of the Glowegee Creek water,
aquatic life, and sediment in the vicinity of the Site to confirm that the general public is not affected
by operations at the Site. There is no detectable radioactivity present in the Glowegee Creek
sediment due to Site operations (KAPL 1992). The concentrations of chemical constituents in liquid
effluent from the Kesselring Site resulted in no adverse effect on the quality of Glowegee Creek
aquatic life. This is substantiated by results of fish and aquatic life surveys that confirmed the
existence of a diverse and healthy aquatic community in the creek water. Only naturally occurring
radionuclides were detected in the Glowegee Creek water samples. The results of analysis for fish
collected from Glowegee Creek show no radioactivity attributable to Site operations.
Currently, Kesselring Site does not discharge radioactive liquid effluent to the environ-
ment. Since the beginning of prototype operations, the release of radioactivity into Glowegee Creek has
been small (about 15 curies) and has had no measurable effect on the natural background radioactivity
in the sediment. Over 98 percent of the radioactivity discharged to the creek was tritium but included
traces of other radionuclides such as cobalt-60, iron-55, nickel-63, and antimony-125 (KAPL 1992).
The amount of tritium released was greatly decreased when water reuse was started by the prototype
plants. In addition, the average concentration of tritium discharged to Glowegee Creek was over
1000 times lower than allowed by federal regulations. In over three decades of operation, there has
been no measurable impact from Kesselring Site operations on the environment or adverse effect on
the community or the public.
4.1.5.9 Ecological Resources
4.1.5.9.1 Terrestrial Ecology.
The conceptual location where naval spent nuclear fuel would be
stored is illustrated in Attachment D. This location is within an existing industrial complex and is
surrounded by buildings and paved areas. The industrial nature of the Site and the fact that the land
has already been disturbed from its natural state by earlier activities mean that plant or animal species
sensitive to disturbance by human activities would not be expected to be present.
4.1.5.9.2 Wetlands.
There are 13 areas located on the Kesselring Site classified as either Class II
or III wetlands in accordance with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYCRR 1987). Current operations which include the secured area of the Site, parking lots, well
field, and pumphouse area do not impact the listed wetlands. Access and perimeter roadways abut
listed wetlands at four locations (within 100 feet); however, construction of these roadways predates
all current regulatory requirements.
4.1.5.9.3 Aquatic Ecology.
In accordance with the Environmental Statement for the S8G
Prototype, Kesselring Site, West Milton, New York (USAEC 1972), an expanded chemical and
biological monitoring program was initiated in Glowegee Creek early in 1975. An important part of
this monitoring program is an annual fish survey in Glowegee Creek upstream and downstream of
Site discharges because Glowegee Creek is classified as a Class "C" trout stream by New York State.
These surveys conducted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and by
environmental consultants from the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory indicate that stocking down-
stream merely supplements the fish population that is removed by fishermen. The section of
Glowegee Creek above the Site, although not stocked, contains a population of native trout which is
maintained by natural spawning of the fish.
4.1.5.9.4 Endangered and Threatened Species.
There are several endangered and threatened
species listed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation located in the
Saratoga County area. The endangered species are the karner blue butterfly, bald eagle, and
peregrine falcon, and the threatened species is the red-shouldered hawk. To date, there have been no
direct observations of these species documented on the Kesselring Site.
4.1.5.10 Noise
Plant operations and maintenance at the Kesselring Site generate noise equivalent to light
industrial activity.
4.1.5.11 Traffic and Transportation
Two corridors, the Hudson-Champlain, 10 to 17 miles to the east, and the Mohawk-Hudson,
10 to 17 miles to the south and southwest, contain the major transportation systems and the relevant
industrial complexes in the vicinity of the Site.
The Cottrell Paper Company, located in Rock City
Falls, 3 miles from the Site, is the only industry within a 5-mile radius.
Except for their use by Kesselring Site employees, the secondary routes bounding the Site are
auxiliary commuting and delivery routes for small products and produce. State Route 29 runs 2 miles
to the north, State Route 147 runs 4 miles to the west, and State Route 67 runs 4 miles to the south.
State Route 50, 6 miles east, running from Saratoga Springs to Scotia, carries the only appreciable
amount of truck and bus traffic. The majority of through traffic uses either Interstate I-87 or parallel
route U.S. Highway 9, in the Hudson-Champlain corridor, 10 miles to the east.
Two lines of the Delaware and Hudson Railroad cross the region within 10 miles of the Site.
The main north-south line runs through Ballston Spa, just over 5 miles to the east, and a trunkline
runs just over 5 miles to the northeast into the central Adirondack area.
Commercial barge traffic occurs on the New York State Barge Canal, 12 miles southwest of
the Site at its closest point, and on the less used Champlain Division, 17 miles east of the Site.
Saratoga County has the nearest airport, 4-1/2 miles east of the Site, followed by Schenectady
and Albany airports, approximately 15 and 20 miles to the south-southeast. Data furnished by air
traffic representatives for the three area airports indicate that regular flight patterns for military,
commercial, and private aircraft, large and small, do not pass within a 5-mile radius of the Site.
Only the instrument approach to the Saratoga County Airport, designated by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), has the potential for overflying the Site.
Albany County Airport, 22 miles south-southeast of the Site, is the nearest airport with
scheduled flights by commercial jet aircraft. Schenectady County Airport, 15 miles south of the Site,
is an auxiliary field with a low volume of traffic relative to size. No air carriers provide scheduled
service out of Schenectady. The bulk of the airport's traffic is corporate and private aircraft, with the
majority of the balance being military aircraft of the 109th New York Air National Guard.
Naval spent nuclear fuel has been removed from the prototypes and transported to the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory Expended Core Facility (ECF) for examination and evaluation as a
matter of routine. Naval spent nuclear fuel shipments from the Kesselring Site to ECF were initiated
in 1961. Since that time, 21 shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel originating at the Kesselring Site
have been made to ECF. The shipping containers were transported by heavy-lift transporter to a
nearby commercial rail line where the containers were then transported by rail. Attachment A
provides a list of these shipments made to date by year. Attachment A also contains detailed
descriptions of the shipping containers used for naval spent nuclear fuel shipments from shipyards.
The Site exclusion area boundary, which is the boundary of the Site, defines the restricted
area. No activities unrelated to plant operation are permitted within the exclusion area. Access to the
fenced-in security area containing the operating facilities (centered within the exclusion area
boundary) is permitted only through one permanent gate facility which is manned by security guards
on a 24-hour-per-day basis.
No public roads, highways, railways, or navigable waterways traverse the exclusion area.
4.1.5.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety
4.1.5.12.1 Occupational Radiological Health and Safety. The Navy has well established and
effective Occupational Safety, Health, and Occupational Medicine programs at all of its facilities. In
regard to radiological aspects of these programs, the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program policy is to
reduce to as low as reasonably achievable the external exposure to personnel from ionizing radiation
associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants. These stringent controls on minimizing occupational
radiation exposure have been successful. No personnel at the Naval Reactors Department of Energy
facilities have ever exceeded the applicable federal annual radiation exposure limit. The annual limit
was 15 rem per year in 1958 and is currently 5 rem per year. No one has exceeded the Program's
limit of 5 rem per year since this limit was established in 1967 and since 1980, no one has received
more than 2 rem per year from radiation associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants. The
average occupational exposure of each person monitored at Naval Reactors DOE facilities is 0.12 rem
per year. The average lifetime accumulated radiation exposure from radiation associated with the
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program for the 141,000 personnel who have been monitored at the DOE
Naval Reactors facilities is about 0.35 rem (NNPP 1994c). This corresponds to the likelihood of a
cancer fatality of 1 in 7142.
Naval Reactors policy on occupational exposure from ingested or inhaled radioactivity is to
prevent significant radiation exposure to personnel from internal radioactivity. The limits invoked to
achieve this objective are one-tenth of the levels allowed by federal regulations for radiation workers.
Since 1972 as a result of this policy, no one has received more than one-tenth the federal annual
occupational exposure limit from internal radiation exposure caused by radioactivity associated with
work at the DOE Naval Reactors facilities.
For work operations involving the potential for spreading radioactive contamination,
containments are used to prevent personnel contamination or generation of airborne radioactivity.
The controls for contamination are so strict that precautions sometimes have had to be taken to
prevent tracking contamination from fallout and natural sources into radiological areas because the
contamination control limits used in these areas were well below the levels of fallout and natural
contamination occurring outside in the general public areas. A basic requirement of contamination
control is monitoring all personnel leaving any area where radioactive contamination could possibly
occur. Workers are trained to survey themselves (i.e., frisk), and their performance is checked by
radiological control personnel. Frisking of the entire body is required, normally using sensitive hand-
held survey instruments. Major work facilities are equipped with portable monitors, which are used
in lieu of hand-held friskers. These stringent controls to protect the workers and the public from
contamination have proven effective in the past.
In 1991, researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, complet-
ed a very comprehensive epidemiological study of the health of workers at the six naval shipyards and two
private shipyards that service the Navy's nuclear-powered ships (Matanoski 1991). This indepen-
dent study evaluated a population of 70,730 civilian workers over a period from 1957, beginning with the
first overhaul of the first nuclear-powered submarine, USS NAUTILUS, through 1981, to determine
whether there was an excess risk of leukemia or other cancers associated with exposure to low levels
of gamma radiation. This study is also of particular relevance to workers at the Naval Reactors
prototypes because the type of radioactivity, level of exposure, and method of radiolog-
ical controls at these shipyards are similar to the Naval Reactors prototypes.
The Johns Hopkins study found no evidence to conclude that the health of people involved in
work on U.S. naval nuclear-powered ships has been adversely affected by exposure to low levels of
radiation incidental to this work. The average annual radiation exposure for these shipyard workers is
about two times higher than the exposure received by personnel assigned to Naval Reactors nuclear
propulsion prototype sites. Additional studies are planned to investigate the observations and update
the shipyard study with data beyond 1981.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. The radiation exposure to transpor-
tation workers for all historical shipments is 16.6 person-rem, which statistically corresponds to
0.0066 cancer fatalities. The maximum exposed individual (MEI) is a transportation worker, since
the workers are closer to the shipment for a longer time than any member of the general population.
Under the limiting assumption that the same worker is associated with every shipment for the entire
historical period, this person would receive a total exposure of 7.5 rem over the approximately
40-year period, or about 0.19 rem per year, which is within DOE standards for occupationally
exposed individuals. The radiation exposures to workers correspond to much less than one incident
cancer, which means that it is unlikely that there have been any past health impacts due to all
historical shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such shipments.
4.1.5.12.2 Occupational Non-radiological Health and Safety.
In the non-radiological
Occupational Safety, Health and Occupational Medicine area, the Navy complies with the Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Administration Regulations. The Navy's policy is to maintain a safe and
healthful work environment at all naval facilities. Engineered systems and administrative controls are
the primary means employed for minimizing potential employee exposure to occupational hazards. If
exposures cannot be controlled with engineering or administrative controls, personal protective
equipment is used to provide additional protection. Due to the varied nature of work at these
facilities, there is a potential for certain employees to be exposed to physical and chemical hazards.
These employees are routinely monitored during work and receive medical surveillance for physical
hazards such as exposure to high noise levels or heat stress. In addition, employees are monitored for
their exposure to chemical hazards such as organic solvents, lead, asbestos, etc., and where appropri-
ate are placed into medical surveillance programs for these chemical hazards.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. Approximately 0.028 fatalities are
estimated as a result of non-radiological sources (vehicle emissions) associated with all historical
shipments of spent nuclear fuel. This number includes both the workers and the general public.
Since this number is much less than one, it is unlikely that there has been any non-radiological health
impact due to the historical shipment of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such
shipments.
4.1.5.12.3 Public Radiological Health and Safety.
The effluent and environmental monitoring
results show that the radioactivity in liquid and gaseous effluents from 1992 operations at the
Kesselring Site had no measurable effect on background radioactivity levels. Therefore, any radiation
exposures from Site operations to off-site individuals were too small to be measured and must be
calculated using conservative methods. In accordance with the "Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
Environmental Monitoring Report for Calendar Year 1992" (KAPL 1992), the following estimates
were determined: (1) the radiation exposure to the maximally exposed individual in the vicinity of the
Site was less than 0.1 mrem, (2) the average exposure to members of the public residing in the
80-kilometer (50-mile) radius assessment area surrounding the Site was less than 0.001 mrem, and
(3) the collective exposure to the population residing within 50 miles of the Site was less than 0.1
person-rem.
The hypothetical exposures calculated in Attachment F for the period 1995 through 2035 were
adjusted from an annual basis (1995) to the historical basis by multiplying by 40 years (to account for
the period of site operations) and by a factor of 1.7 to take into consideration variations in the number
of prototypes and operations.
The calculated accumulated exposures through 1995 to the general population within 50 miles
of the site (about 1.15 million people) are 3.9 person-rem. To provide perspective, the exposures
received due to natural radiation sources through 1995 are approximately 14 million person-rem,
based on 0.3 rem per person per year.
The results show that the estimated exposures were less than 0.1 percent of that permitted by
the radiation protection standards listed in DOE Order 5400.5 (DOE 1993), and that the estimated
exposure to the population residing within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the Site was less than 0.001
percent of the natural background radiation exposure to the population. In addition, the estimated
exposures were less than 1 percent of that permitted by the numerical guide listed in 10CFR50,
Appendix I (CFR 1986) for whole-body exposure, demonstrating that exposures are as low as is
reasonably achievable. The exposure attributed to radioactive air emissions was less than 1 percent of
the EPA standard given in 40CFR61 (CFR 1989).
The collective radiation exposure to the public along travel routes from Kesselring Site
shipments of radioactive materials during 1992 was calculated using data given by the NRC in the
"Final Environmental Statement of the Transportation of Material by Air and Other Modes" (NUREG
1977). Based on the type and number of shipments made, the collective annual radiation exposure to
the public along the transportation routes, including transportation workers, was approximately
1 person-rem. This is less than 0.001 percent of the exposure received by the same population from
natural background radiation.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. The radiation exposure to the
general population for all historical shipments is 1.95 person-rem, which statistically corresponds to
0.00098 cancer fatalities.
All of the radiation exposures to the general population correspond to much less than one
incident cancer, which means that it is unlikely that there has been any past health impact to the
public due to all historical shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such
shipments.
4.1.5.12.4 Public Non-radiological Health and Safety.
Liquid effluents from the Kesselring
Site are derived from several sources: Site boiler blowdown, sewage treatment plant, cooling tower
blowdown and overflow, retention basin discharges, storm water, and site service cooling water.
Liquid effluents from the Kesselring Site enter Glowegee Creek through two surface channels
(discharges 001 and 002), a submerged drain line from the sewage treatment plant (discharge 003),
and a storm water runoff (discharge 004).
With the exception of the sewage treatment plant, intermittent cooling tower blowdowns, and
once-through cooling systems that operate continuously, all effluents are released in batches. Control
of effluent concentrations is achieved by the analysis of liquid collected from the continuous flow
systems and from the collection tanks prior to each release from the batch systems.
A series of gates are located in discharge channels 001, 002, and the lagoon to provide a
means to contain effluent if concentrations should ever exceed applicable discharge limits. In
addition, continuous pH and temperature monitoring systems are installed in discharge channels 001,
002, and the lagoon. These systems automatically control the discharge gates and provide an alarm if
there is ever an out-of-specification pH or temperature level. Periodic samples collected from the
effluent channels are analyzed for chemical constituents, and demonstrate compliance with the Site's
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation State Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. Approximately 0.028 fatalities are
estimated as a result of non-radiological sources (vehicle emissions) associated with all historical
shipments of spent nuclear fuel. This number includes both the workers and the general public.
Since this number is much less than one, it is unlikely that there has been any non-radiological health
impact to the public due to all historical shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history
of such shipments.
4.1.5.13 Utilities and Energy
4.1.5.13.1 Water Consumption. The Site Service Water System provides the Kesselring Site
with water for operations, fire protection, sanitary, and potable use. The Site uses approximately 512
million gallons of well water per year. The Site is supplied by two pressurized mains from pumps
located at the well field. Main and backup chlorination facilities are located at two of the pump
locations. Five loops, on site, comprise the central distribution system which is capable of delivering
up to 3,800 gallons per minute. Surge capacity for fire fighting and peak usage is provided by two
elevated head tanks with a combined capacity of 500,000 gallons.
4.1.5.13.2 Electricity Consumption.
The Kesselring Site is provided with two separate off-site
commercial electrical power sources from the Niagara Mohawk Power Company. One source is the
115-kv Transmission Line No. 1 that runs between Spier Falls, New York and Rotterdam, New
York. This line is approximately 40 miles long and is tapped at approximately the midpoint to provide
service to the Site. The overhead line from the 115-kv tap on Line No. 1 to the Site is 2.4 miles
long. The second physically independent commercial source feeding the Site is a 34.5-kv overhead
transmission line supplied from a radial system fed from Ballston Spa, New York. The 34.5-kv line
is approximately 9.6 miles long. The Site uses 47 thousand megawatt-hours of electricity annually for
security, building lighting, and prototype plant support.
4.1.5.13.3 Fuel Consumption.
There is no natural gas used on the Kesselring Site. Number 2
fuel oil is used to fire four Site steam generating boilers for Site heating for which the annual fuel oil
consumption averages 640,000 gallons.
4.1.5.13.4 Wastewater Systems and Discharges.
The sewage treatment facility for the
Kesselring Site is a third-level treatment facility utilizing the extended aeration/contact stabilization of
activated sludge and chemical precipitation of phosphorus followed by sand filtration. This facility
meets all federal and New York State standards for sewage treatment. Discharges are controlled in
conformance with the terms of a New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination permit. Waste
sludge is stored in a holding tank and is periodically removed by a licensed subcontractor for disposal
at a state-approved, off-site disposal area. The treatment plant is automatic and operates unattend-
ed. Routine analysis and adjustments are made daily. Approximately 9.125 million gallons of sewage are
processed by the Site Sewage Treatment Facility each year.
4.1.5.13.5 Energy Consumption.
The following energy conservation initiatives for the
Kesselring Site are scheduled for completion between now and the year 2000:
(1) The shutdown of one prototype plant.
(2) The conversion from fuel oil to natural gas for operating the Site steam heating boilers.
(3) Replacing the existing building lights and windows with modern, more energy efficient
systems.
(4) Major building renovations including energy conservation upgrades to various administra-
tion and testing facilities.
4.1.5.14 Materials and Waste Management
Operation of the Kesselring Site results in the generation of various types of radioactive
materials that require detailed procedures for handling, packaging, transportation, and, if necessary,
disposal at a government-operated burial site.
Radioactive materials that do not require disposal are
handled and transferred in accordance with detailed material control and accountability procedures.
Internal reviews are made prior to the shipment of any radioactive materials from the Site to ensure
that the material is properly identified, surveyed, and packaged in accordance with federal, state, and
local requirements.
Low-level radioactive solid waste material that requires disposal includes filters, metal scrap,
resin, rags, paper, and plastic. The volume of waste contaminated with radioactivity that is generated
and shipped is minimized through the use of special work procedures that limit the amount of material
that becomes contaminated during work on radioactive systems and reactor components. In addition,
compressible wastes are compacted in order to further reduce the volume of waste to be buried.
Radioactive liquids are solidified prior to shipment. All radioactive wastes are packaged to meet
applicable regulations of the Department of Transportation given in 49CFR, Parts 171-175 and
177-178 (CFR 1985). The waste packages also comply with all applicable requirements of the NRC,
the DOE, and the burial sites. All shipments of low-level radioactive solid wastes were made by
authorized common carriers to government-owned burial sites located outside of New York State.
During 1992, approximately 215 cubic meters (281 cubic yards) of routine low-level radioactive waste
containing 987 curies were shipped from the Site for burial.
Site operations produce a variety of industrial waste products including sewage treatment plant
sludge and effluent, once-through cooling water, chemical wastes, boiler exhaust gases, and other
such products typical of a large laboratory facility. All such waste products are controlled in accor-
dance with various permits as required by federal and state laws. Chemically hazardous solids are
controlled and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) in accordance with a permit held by the Site and administered by New York
State.
All hazardous wastes are transported off-site for disposal at permitted, commercially
available, facilities. No treatment (with the exception of exempt simple treatment and elementary
neutralization) or disposal occurs at the Kesselring Site. In 1992, the Kesselring Site shipped
approximately 15 tons of various hazardous wastes for off-site disposal. In accordance with RCRA,
the Site has prepared a hazardous waste minimization plan. The plan requires specific actions to
identify and minimize waste-producing operations, compare minimization efforts year to year to
demonstrate progress, and establish waste minimization goals. This is accomplished by establishment
of strict procurement procedures, substitution of non-hazardous materials where practical, and other
similar measures.
Waste which is both radioactive and chemically hazardous is regulated under both the Atomic
Energy Act and the RCRA as "mixed waste." Within the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program,
concerted efforts are taken to avoid commingling radioactive and chemically hazardous substances so
as to minimize the potential for generation of mixed waste. For example, these efforts include
avoiding the use of acetone solvents, lead-based paints, lead shielding in disposal containers, and
chemical paint removers. Radioactive wastes, including those containing chemically hazardous
substances, are handled in accordance with long-standing Program radiological requirements. Such
handling includes solidification to immobilize the radioactivity, separation of the radioactive and
chemically hazardous substances, removal of liquids from solids, and other simple techniques. A
determination is then made as to whether the resulting waste is hazardous. As a result of Program
efforts to avoid the use of chemically hazardous substances in radiological work, Program activities
typically generate only a few hundred cubic feet of mixed waste each year. This small amount of
mixed waste, along with limited amounts of mixed waste from Program work conducted prior to
1987, will be stored pending the licensing of commercial treatment and disposal facilities.
Sanitary wastewater is processed at a conventional extended aeration treatment plant at the
southeast corner of the fenced security area. The treatment train consists of equipment to break down
large solids, aeration tanks in which air is bubbled through the waste to provide mixing with activated
sludge to reduce biochemical oxygen demand, and a clarifier for the separation of liquids and solids.
The treatment plant is effective in reducing biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids by over
90 percent in the effluent. Discharges are controlled in conformance with the terms of a New York
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit held by the Kesselring Site. As the need arises,
accumulated sludge is removed from the plant by a New York State licensed subcontractor and
disposed of at an approved off-site disposal facility also licensed by New York State.
Non-hazardous wastes are reused and recycled or disposed of off-site. Sanitary wastes such
as cafeteria waste, scrap paper, and the like are also disposed of at a licensed off-site facility. No
hazardous wastes are being buried in the landfill. Most metal solid waste is accumulated and sold to
a scrap salvage vendor.
4.2 IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY
4.2.1 Overview
There are three naval reactor prototype plants at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
(INEL) at the Naval Reactors Facility (NRF). These plants contain nuclear reactor plants, but they
have reached the end of their usefulness and are being placed in layup and safe storage.
Dismantlement of each of the prototype plants will be accomplished in the future; however, no
specific time has yet been set for this work. Appropriate documentation under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will be prepared for prototype dismantlement when a specific
proposal for these actions has been developed.
Also located at the Naval Reactors Facility is the Expended Core Facility (ECF) to which
naval spent nuclear fuel has been shipped for examination since 1957. After examination at the ECF,
the spent nuclear fuel is transferred to the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, also at INEL, for
storage. This section provides a brief summary of the INEL affected environment. A detailed
description of the affected environment at the INEL is provided in Volume 1, Appendix B and
Volume 2, Section 4. The reader should refer to the applicable sections therein for additional
information.
4.2.2 Land Use
The INEL site (which has been designated a National Environmental Research Park) occupies
approximately 2300 square kilometers (about 890 square miles) of dry, cool desert in southeastern
Idaho. Land at the INEL site is currently used for industrial and support operations associated with
energy research and waste management activities, grazing, infrastructure, recreational uses, and
environmental research. Only about 2 percent of the land is used for facilities and operations. Public
access to most facility areas is restricted. Land surrounding the INEL site is primarily used for
grazing, mineral and energy production, wildlife management, range land, and recreational uses.
4.2.3 Socioeconomics
INEL plays a substantial role in the regional economy. For fiscal year 1990, INEL directly
employed approximately 11,100 personnel, or nearly 12 percent of the total regional employment.
The population directly supported by INEL employment was approximately 38,000 persons, or 17
percent of the total regional population. Over 97 percent of INEL employees reside in the region of
influence affected by the INEL. The INEL region of influence includes the seven counties
surrounding and including the INEL: Bingham, Bonneville, Butte, Clark, Jefferson, Bannock, and
Madison counties. Employment in this region experienced an annual average growth rate of
approximately 1.3 percent from 1980 to 1991 while the population growth in the same region between
1980 and 1990 was about 0.6 percent per year. Volume 1, Appendix B provides a complete
description of the affected environment at the INEL in this category.
Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations," requires federal agencies to identify and address, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their
programs and activities on minority and low-income populations. An adverse environmental impact is
a deleterious environmental impact determined to be unacceptable or above generally accepted norms.
A disproportionately high impact refers to an impact (or risk of an impact) in a low-income or
minority community that significantly exceeds that on the larger community. Data available from the
U. S. Census of 1990 have been used to develop information on the locations of minority and low-
income populations within approximately 50 miles of the INEL, and are provided in Appendix B to
this volume of the Environmental Impact Statement. These data were developed in a manner which
ensures that they are consistent with the data on the total population provided in Appendix B.
4.2.4 Cultural Resources
Approximately 4 percent of the INEL has been surveyed for archaeological resources. Over
1500 sites have been identified; however, none are currently on the National Register of Historic
Places, but may be placed there after formal evaluation. One structure on the INEL related to nuclear
research and development, the Experimental Breeder Reactor I, is on the National Register of Historic
Places and is a National Historic Landmark while a number of other reactors and associated buildings
are eligible for inclusion. The entire INEL site is culturally important to Native Americans, since
they believe the land is sacred. Further information on cultural resources at INEL is provided in
Volume 1, Appendix B, Section 4.4 and in Volume 2, Section 4.4.2.
4.2.5 Aesthetic and Scenic Resources
The INEL site is bordered on the north and west by the Bitterroot, Lemhi, and Lost River
mountain ranges. Volcanic buttes near the southern boundary of the INEL can be seen from most
locations on the site. Most of the area within the INEL site consists of open, undeveloped land.
Although many of the site facilities are visible to the public, most facilities are located over 0.5 mile
from public roads. The reader should refer to the detailed description of the affected environment in
this category at the INEL in Volume 1, Appendix B.
4.2.6 Geology
The INEL site is located on the Eastern Snake River Plain which extends in a broad arc from
the Idaho-Oregon border in the west to the Yellowstone Plateau in the east. The resources found
within the site are sand, gravel, and pumice.
The Eastern Snake River Plain has low seismicity but is surrounded by an area of high
seismicity. A summary of the seismicity at the ECF site is provided in Attachment B.
Volcanic hazards at the INEL site have a low probability of occurrence. Volcanism hazards
in the INEL area consist of possible recurrence of silicic volcanism, silicic dome emplacement, and
basaltic eruptions. Of these three volcanic hazards, basaltic eruptions have been determined to have
the highest expectation of occurrence. The potential for basaltic volcanism that could affect ECF is
less than 10-5 per year. The reason that the risk from volcanic hazards at ECF is so low is that the
facility is more than 9 miles north of the highest potential source of basaltic eruptions. Because of the
viscous nature of basaltic lava flows, they are very slow moving and can be diverted in terrain such
as that on the INEL. The potential for silicic volcanism impacting ECF is negligible because the
center of silicic volcanism is now located under Yellowstone National Park which is about 125 miles
east of ECF. Several small silicic domes were emplaced in the vicinity of INEL in the past 1.5
million years. These silicic domes are about 17 miles south of the Expended Core Facility and would
have minimal impact on the site. (Rizzo 1994)
4.2.7 Air Resources
The Eastern Snake River Plain climate exhibits low relative humidity, wide daily temperature
swings, and large variations in annual precipitation. The average seasonal temperatures at the INEL
site range from -7.3 degrees C (18.8 degrees F) in winter to 18.2 degrees C (64.8 degrees F) in
summer. Annual precipitation is light, averaging 22.1 centimeters (8.7 inches). The average annual
snowfall is 70.1 centimeters (27.6 inches). Other than thunderstorms, severe weather is uncommon.
The air quality on the INEL site and off-site is generally good and within applicable
guidelines. Details of the non-radiological air quality and the radiological air quality are provided in
Appendix B of Volume 1.
4.2.8 Water Resources
Surface water features near the INEL site are the Big Lost River, Little Lost River, Birch
Creek, and on-site man-made ponds. Water in the rivers does not exceed the applicable drinking
water quality standards. The potential for flooding has been assessed. Details on the INEL flood
plains can be found in Appendix B and Volume 2.
Groundwater in the area is contained in the Snake River Plain Aquifer. Subsurface water
quality is affected by natural water chemistry and contaminants originating at the site. Previous waste
discharges to unlined ponds and deep wells have introduced radionuclides, non-radioactive metals,
inorganic salts, and organic compounds into the subsurface water. For a complete description of the
affected environment in this category, the reader should refer to Volume 1, Appendix B.
4.2.9 Ecological Resources
Vegetation on the INEL site is primarily shrub-steppe vegetation, with sagebrush being the
dominant plant. The INEL supports animal communities typical of shrub-steppe vegetation and
habitats. Over 270 vertebrate species have been observed on the site. A more thorough treatment of
the topic of ecological resources at the INEL is provided in Volume 1, Appendix B. Also presented
therein is a description of the threatened and endangered species which include the bald eagle and the
peregrine falcon.
4.2.10 Noise
The major sources of noise at the INEL occur primarily in developed operational areas and
include various facilities, equipment, and machines. Existing INEL-related noises which might affect
the public are those from transporting people and materials to and from the INEL and in-town
facilities via buses, trucks, private vehicles, helicopters, and freight trains. In addition, air cargo and
business travel of INEL personnel via commercial air transport represent an appreciable fraction of all
such travel in and out of regional airports.
4.2.11 Traffic and Transportation
The INEL is surrounded by a system of interstate highways, U.S. highways, state highways,
railroads, and airports. The regional railroads include main and branch Union Pacific lines in
Southeastern Idaho. The two major airports in Idaho Falls and Pocatello provide passenger and cargo
service.
The INEL transportation infrastructure consists of an on-site road system and rail service.
There are about 140 kilometers (87 miles) of paved roads, of which 29 kilometers (18 miles) are
considered service roads and are closed to the public. The Union Pacific Railroad crosses the
southern portion of the INEL and provides rail service to the site. Rail shipments are limited to bulk
commodities, spent nuclear fuel, and radioactive materials.
4.2.12 Occupational and Public Health and Safety
4.2.12.1 Occupational Radiological Health and Safety. Radiation exposures to workers at
ECF in recent years have averaged approximately 100 millirem per year, compared to the limit of
5000 millirem per year specified by The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20. The total
radiation exposure to workers at ECF makes up about 30% of the occupational exposure to radiation
experienced by workers at NRF. Approximately 280 workers at ECF work in radiological areas and
are monitored for occupational radiation exposure. The average lifetime accumulated radiation
exposure from radiation associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants for the 141,000 personnel
who have been monitored at the DOE Naval Reactors facilities including ECF, is about 0.35 rem
(NNPP 1994c). This corresponds to the likelihood of a cancer fatality of 1 in 7142.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. The radiation exposure to
transportation workers for all historical shipments is 16.6 person-rem, which statistically corresponds
to 0.0066 cancer fatalities. The maximum exposed individual (MEI) is a transportation worker, since
the workers are closer to the shipment for a longer time than any member of the general population.
Under the limiting assumption that the same worker is associated with every shipment for the entire
historical period, this person would receive a total exposure of 7.5 rem over the approximately
40-year period, or about 0.19 rem per year, which is within Department of Energy (DOE) standards
for occupationally exposed individuals. The radiation exposures to workers correspond to much less
than one incident cancer, which means that it is unlikely that there have been any past health impacts
due to all historical shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such shipments.
4.2.12.2 Occupational Non-radiological Health and Safety. In the non-radiological
Occupational Safety, Health, and Occupational Medicine area, the Navy complies with the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulations. The Navy's policy is to maintain a safe
and healthful work environment at all naval facilities. Due to the varied nature of work at these
facilities, there is a potential for certain employees to be exposed to physical and chemical hazards.
These employees are routinely monitored during work and receive medical surveillance for physical
hazards such as exposure to high noise levels or heat stress. In addition, employees are monitored for
their exposure to chemical hazards such as organic solvents, lead, asbestos, etc., and where
appropriate are placed into medical surveillance programs for these chemical hazards.
Operations at ECF have resulted in fewer than 210 days of work lost to injuries in the seven
years between 1987 and 1993 out of 736 total lost days of work at NRF during that period.
Recordable injuries at ECF represented about 12 percent of the total number of such injuries at NRF
during the same period.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. Approximately 0.028 fatalities are
estimated as a result of non-radiological sources (vehicle emissions) associated with all historical
shipments of spent nuclear fuel. This number includes both the workers and the general public.
Since this number is much less than one, it is unlikely that there has been any non-radiological health
impact due to the historical shipment of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such
shipments.
Limited quantities of some materials classified as hazardous chemicals are handled at ECF,
but the precautions used during the work prevent exposure of the workers to these materials.
4.2.12.3 Public Radiological Health and Safety. The Naval Reactors Facility has from its
beginning monitored potential sources of releases of radioactivity to the environment from the NRF
site in liquid and airborne effluents. Releases of water containing low levels of radioactivity to
various disposal basins, leaching pits, and retention basins were made principally in the 1950s and
1960s. This practice was discontinued in 1979 and the residual activity in the soil from this practice
is estimated to be approximately 150 curies, consisting primarily of cesium-137, strontium-90, and
cobalt-60. The Naval Reactors Facility maintains a program to monitor these areas to provide
assurance that they continue to not present a hazard to the public. Operations at NRF, including
ECF, have had no effect on the groundwater of the Snake River Plain Aquifer. Monitoring of the
aquifer on the NRF site indicates radioactivity is at or near natural background levels. The
comprehensive INEL site radiation monitoring program (Hoff et al. 1992) shows that radiation
exposure to persons off-site as a result of all NRF operations is too small to be measured.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. The radiation exposure to the
general population for all historical shipments is 1.95 person-rem, which statistically corresponds to
0.00098 cancer fatalities. The maximum exposed individual (MEI) is a transportation worker, since
these workers are closer to the shipment for a longer time than any member of the general population.
The maximum exposure to an individual of the general population is 0.062 rem over the entire
historical period, which statistically corresponds to 0.000031 cancer fatalities.
4.2.12.4 Public Non-radiological Health and Safety. Since operations began, NRF has
monitored site water and air released from operations at the site to ensure that they meet the
requirements of applicable federal and state environmental standards. Results of all effluent
monitoring confirm that the operation of NRF has no discernible impact on the environment
(WECNRF 1993). Operations at NRF have not caused degradation of the quality of the groundwater
of the Snake River Plain Aquifer. Monitoring results indicate no detectable toxic chemicals, solvents,
or laboratory chemicals in the groundwater in the vicinity of NRF. Low levels of sodium and
chloride (like table salt) used to soften site water and nitrates (which leaked through cracks in the
sewage lagoon liners) and discharges to the industrial waste ditch are detectable in the immediate
vicinity of NRF at levels below the applicable drinking water standards. No constituent measured in
groundwater exceeds applicable drinking water standards.
Attachment A provides a discussion of the calculation of past health impacts associated with
all transportation of naval spent nuclear fuel and test specimens. As stated in Section 4.2.12.2, it is
unlikely that there has been any non-radiological health impact to the public due to all historical
shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel over the entire history of such shipments.
4.2.13 Utilities and Energy
The following discussion briefly describes the current utility and energy usage at INEL. For
more detailed information, refer to Volume 1, Appendix B.
Commercial electrical power is supplied to the INEL site by the Idaho Power Company. The
water supply for INEL is provided by a system of wells, pumps, and storage tanks which are
administered by the DOE. Because of the distance between site facility areas, the water supply
systems for each facility are independent of each other. Wastewater systems at most on-site facility
areas consist primarily of septic tanks and drain fields, although two areas also have wastewater
treatment facilities. The fuels consumed at the site (fuel oil, gasoline, diesel, kerosene, coal, and
liquid petroleum gas) are transported to the site by various distributors for storage and use.
4.2.14 Materials and Waste Management
The following discussion briefly describes the current waste disposal practices at the INEL.
For more detailed information, refer to Volume 1, Appendix B.
High-level waste is currently in storage at the INEL Idaho Chemical Processing Plant. Liquid
waste is blended and then treated by calcination to produce a granular calcine solid.
Transuranic waste is kept in retrievable storage at the Radioactive Waste Management
Complex. Although there is no currently available disposal facility, all transuranic wastes are
intended to ultimately be retrieved, repackaged, certified, and shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant for final disposal.
Low-level waste has been stored and disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management
Complex. Most low-level waste is reduced in volume before disposal through incineration,
compaction, and sizing at the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility; however, this treatment has
been curtailed since 1991 awaiting an operating permit from the State of Idaho. Low-level waste
awaiting treatment is stored on asphalt/concrete pads at the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility
and in radioactive waste storage containers at the generating facilities.
Most of the mixed low-level waste currently stored at the INEL is alpha-contaminated low-
level mixed waste shipped to the INEL for storage and treatment from off-site generators. Currently,
only low-level mixed waste from INEL contractors is accepted at INEL for treatment and disposal.
All low-level mixed waste generated at INEL is stored at interim storage facilities until treatment
systems become available or operational.
Hazardous waste generated at the INEL is not treated or permanently stored at the INEL. It
is collected and temporarily stored at the Hazardous Waste Storage Facility, or at temporary
accumulation areas, and shipped off-site to permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facilities.
The industrial/commercial solid waste generated at the INEL is disposed of in the INEL
Landfill Complex located at the Central Facilities Area. Waste segregation takes place at each INE