ML20049J089
| ML20049J089 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/17/1982 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Wagner E NAVY, DEPT. OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049J090 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203120039 | |
| Download: ML20049J089 (4) | |
Text
,
)
l e.,
FEB 171982 edn,q f,:,
~L:
j
'ya ny v
h
['
Captain E. F. Wagner of Naval Operations
- lgop'" h]g y~
",,l Department of the Navy Office of the Chief
("i
' /h Hashington, D. C. 20350
/
s
Dear Captain Wagner:
This is in response to your letter of January 15, 1982 to Chaiman palladino in which you requested suggestions on matters which night be considered in the preparation of an environnental inpact statenent on the disposal of decon-missioned nuclear pot;ered subnarines. He offer the following suggestions:
1.
The language of the Federal P.egister Motice as well as your letter imply extended protective storage is not considered by the Navy to be a viable alternative. He believe that this alternative should be provided the sane degree of evaluation as others since some level of extended protective storage in conbination with eve.1tual disposal could be a positive neans of reducing occupa-tional exposure that night be associated with nore inmediately implemented disposal schenes. Uc recognize that there are costs associated with such storage that must be considered in balancing the relative costs and benefits of each alternative.
2.
In the analysis of the alternative involving land disposal of the radioactive portions of the submarine power plant, the salvage value of the remaining non-radioactive portions of the submarine should be included in your cost benefit balance and in the identi-num fication of natural resource connitnent.
@EE gnS 3.
Your EIS on disposal will consider an activity that would continue gato for the next 30 years; and would involve discrete actions, perhaps s8 three or four times a year.
In view of the long tern of the pro-ok posed activity, and considering that unlike many pemanent connit-Zk nents, the direction of the proposed activity could be changed
$n0 should the environmental inpact perception or waste disposal IU"8 philosophy change, we suggest that a connittent be made to review the decision periodically, k
'n reports on data collected and observations nado on the sea floor
' O )I'f Ad
,j 4.
The outline noted that Appendix D of the EIS will include two xg SCORPION) that were lost at sea. Appendix D should also include f
p0f at the sites of two nuclear submarines (USS THRESHER and USS l
data collected and observations made at the disposal site of the sb p $64 initial rum.i.ur cuupdrL ient vi i.he >utoartiw U3S SE#tCLF o" '" >................
-+
....I................
ou+
Erc ronu sie iso-so> nncu 024o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
l l
Captain E. F. kagner 2
i 5.
The portion of the EIS which addre.sses land disposal should discuss how the types and quantities of radionuclides involved coripare to the criteria specified in Table 1 of the proposed regulation for shallow land burial of low-level waste (10 CFR 61).
6.
The outline noted that Chapter 3, Section A of the EIS will discuss land disposal at two federal waste disposal sites (Ifanford and Savannah River). The discussion should include consideration of all the federal disposal sites.
Thank you for providing the Nuclear Regulatory Coamission the opportunity to concent.
Sincerely.
Origina! SinHW by t
H. R. Deatwa Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION Central Files NRC PDR LPDR ED0 Rdg.
JDavis GCunningham HDenton ECase PPAS DEisenhut SHanauer RMattson HThompson BSnyder PCheck DMuller SECY 82-32 (3)
PBrandenburg (ED0-11402)
SCavanaugh RVol1mer LMiller AFerguson JMartin MM/W
. sn 1
,EG{Ca,sj,,,,,
E* *
.k.
n.R
.9.o.eET..... D.Qf..........
nRR 3....
'*"~> ppMiIkf..
,HRDktgn_,,,
[ j,,g
~..
h
..RHf.ol,he,r,,,,
.... /./b,,82. /........
.... 3.'
,.1o..
=>
2./,9/.8. 2........ 2../. q.. /.8. 2.......
2./..../. 8. 2..........
... 2./..f../. 82 2
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
n.
?,
r y
y m
FROM:
ACTION CONTROL DATES CONTfiOL NO Dept. of Navy COMPL DEADLINE pf]7fgp E. F. Maw ACKNOWLE DGMENT DATE OF DOCUMENT INTERIM REPLY
, h'a j f] rf(T T 0;
.( [ /
PREPAFIE F R SIGNATURE OF:
FINAL REPLY t/
4' O CHAlRhTAft Chairman Pallad1M FILE LOCATION *
(
O EXE f
CTOR'
.t+;;/.a OTHER:
1 DESCRIPTION
[]LETTEH OMEMO O REPORT O OTHER SPECI AL INSTituCTIONS OR REMARKSs Req suggast1was on alternatives or matters I
wMch should be considered in ; reparation I
of draft EIS on alterr.ative methods for I
disposal of defueled nuclear iseed sulmrines CLASSIFIED DATA OOCUMENT/ COPY NO.
C LASSIF IC A TIO Nl NUMBER OF PAGES CATEGOHY
{Q.[.{
POST AL REGIST RY NO, O Ns O no O FRD
' ASSIGNED TO; DATE INFORMATION ROUTING LEG AL REVIEW U FINAL 0 COPY gg u*p q
]f 3*J gg ASSIGNED TO:
DATE N(
0 L OBJECllONS Moline 1/21/A2-Cunnin pam. ELD 5.-1%ier
+ Check O EDO AouiN a CORnEs on
} ggg[p.-
Case /Denton t.-44attson COM ME NTS, NOTIF Y 1.
PPAS h-T W en
- cxy, 2.
Eisenhut
- .ggg$}gi;ATION RECOMMENDEO; O YE5 O NO f T
i NRCroRM M2 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIOP'S DO NOT REMOVE THIS COPV, PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL 2
82W' '
~ ~ ' l' "
~
w
@X,y@]X togg,ng o,i.1/19/82 :
, No.
NRC SECRETARIAT TO: O commission.,
o.i.
XE t.c. o.raoper.
O c.n. counsei O cono ti son O soiicitor O Pubhc Aff.srs O secretary 0
O ins,.ctor & Auditor O roiicy Eveioetion E. F. Wagner, Captain 7,,,,.
U.d. Uept or Ine navy Palladino 1/15/82 yo; g,,,
sub.ci:
req any susgestions on alternative or matters i
which should be consicered in the preparation of the draft environ impact statement on alternative methods foi disposal of defueled nuc powered submarines O Prep.re reply for signature of:
O ch.irm.n O commissioner O EDO, GC, CL, SOL, PA, SECY, I A, PE O sign.iur.biock omiti.o O R.iurn origin.i of incoming.iin respons.
XGX ror dir.ci r.psy.
Suspense:
Feb 12 O ror.porop :.i..ciion O ror inform. tion k[.* M 80 Time,,, p...i < p..o:==
--e.....
u R,m.,is:
Covs to: RF ror the Commission:
hillIo
' Send three (3) copies of reply to Secy Correspondence end Records Bronch I
mac42 ACTION SLIP l
I l
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
[g OFFICE OF THE CH.EF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS WASHINGTON. D.C.
20350 m otm atum January 15, 1982 Dr. N. J. Palladino, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Matomic Building 1717 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20555
Dear Dr. Palladino:
Enclosed is the text of a U.S. Navy announcement of its intention to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on alternative methods' for disposal of defueled nuclear powered submarines. This notice of intention was published in the Federal Register on January 14, 1982. The notice begins the public scoping process by requesting suggestions from all interested parties on alternatives and environmental issues to be considered in development of the statement in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
It also emphasizes that /
the Navy has no immediate plans to dispose of any nuclear powered ships and, indeed, no decision has been made to do so. The purpose of this notice is to start the public process and identify public concerns well before any disposal actions are necessary. Completion of the EIS process will not result in any 4
immediate disposal actions.
At the present time the U.S. Navy has four nuclear powered submarines that have been defueled and decommissioned and placed in protective storage at U.S. Navy shipyards.
In addition, the USS NAUTILUS has been defueled and decommissioned and is being prepared as a national monument. The measures used to prepare these ships for protective storage ensure that no radiological concerns exist either for shipyard employees or the general public and that the ships pose no environmental problem. They can be maintained in this configuration for an extended period of time. However, such storage is not a permanent method for
{ disposal of low-level solid radioactive material. Thus, if the Navy were tc j decide to completely dispose of the ship, a means for permanently disposing of
- the radioactive material would have to be available.
k In all alternatives to be considered, the nuclear fuel will have been removed from the ship prior to decommissioning so no spent reactor fuel will remain in the submarine _at the time of disposal. However, some remaining portions of the reactor plant will be radioactive as a result of the prior operation of the reactor. The radioactivt material exists primarily as an integral part of the metal forming the reactor plant components. The mechanism for release of the radioactivity to the environment would be through corrosion of the metal.
. Two practical alternatives for disposal have been identified by the Navy.
One alternative is to bury the submarine's reactor compartment, which houses the defueled reactor plant, at existing Department of Energy land disposal sites at the Hanford Reservation in southeastern Washington or the Savannah River Plant in South Carolina.
Such a disposal would be carried out in compliance with applicable requirements for preparation, shipping, and disposal and is consistent with current U.S. practice for disposal of solid low-level radioactive wastes.
The other alternative is to place the entire ship, after removal of the nuclear fuel, on the deep ocean floor complying with requirements established in consideration of U.S. and international laws and treaties.
No deep ocean disposal sites have been designated anywhere, since the Navy is still in the process of establishing feasibility and sea disposal may not even be selected for further development. Even if the sea disposal option were eventually chosen and a specific site were selected, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would, under the terms of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, need to grant a permit for disposal after the suitability of the disposal action and the specific site had been determined by them to be acceptable.
The process of selecting and obtaining approval of a specific disposal site could begin only after the Navy has completed the EIS and it was determined appropriate to proceed with that alternative.
Both alternatives take advantage of the containment provided by the ship's reactor compartment, which would fonn an outer disposal container of high strength and durability.
Corrosion of the metal of the hull and the reactor plant would be the way that the contained radioactivity would be released, and this would be a slow process because of the thickness of the metal used and the use of corrosion-resistant alloys in the reactor plant.
During the time required for the corrosion process, a significant reduction in the radioactivity would result because of normal radioactive decay.
The preliminary estimates indicate that the potential radiation exposure to humans associated with either alternative would be much less than the exposure due to natural background radiation.
This announcement is being transmitted directly to you because it was felt you might be interested in this action.
If you have any suggestions on alternatives or matters which should be considered in the preparation of the draft environmental impact statement, please send them to the address provided in the announcement.
/
Sincerely yours, E. F. Wagner Captain, U.S. Navy a
2152 Federal Register / Vol. 47 No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 1982 / Notices deep weter locations that would be completionof the draftEIS,its selected and approved by the United evadability will be announced in the States Environmental Protection Federal Register, at which time Agency. Although specific ocean sites comments from Federal and State are not being selected in this EIS.
agencies, organizations, and the general preliminary evaluation of avadable public will be solicited. Comments on information indicates that ocean areas the draft EIS will be considered in
. meeting international site criteria do preparing the final EIS. Based on the exist within 200 miles of the East and final EIS, a decisMn will be made as to West Coasts of the United States.
which alternative will be pursued by tha An alternative for temporary
- Navy, dispop' don of these defueled submarine Written comments or suggestions on reactor plants would be the placement the scope of the "lS may be submitted of each submarine in protective'sorage to: Captain Edward F. Wagner, U.S.
such as in a Naval sliipyard for un Navy. Off ce of the Chief of Nava!
extended period.This would allow Operations (OpNAV-22). Department of radioactive material to decay under the Navy Washington, D.C. 20350, controlled conditions without release to Telephone (202, S9M984.
ths; endronment. However, this T
'-* agencies and individuals alternative would lead to other impacts t) 2articularly interested in and only ostpone the decision for f
.ne per nent issues, an ti ultimate isposal, requiring the decision ed outline of the draft EIS as an,.
to be made sometime in the future. For currently envisioned by the Navy has this reason, this alternative is regarded been prepared. Requests for this outline as the co-action altesnative. No other should be addressed to Captain Wagner practica4 alternatives are known to exist at the above address.
for the final dispositi m of the reactor Forgeneralinformation on the Navy plants.
~..
impacts to be a'ssesed for each EIS process contact: Mr. Edward W.
disposal alternative include expected Johnson, Office of the Chief of Naval commitment of resources, land use.
Operations (OPNAV-45). Department of transportation requirements, and the Navy, Washington, D.C. 20350, environmenta: consequences. Including Telephone: (202] 697-3689.
occupational radiation exposure due to Written comments received on or disposal activities, and possible before February 16,1982, will be radiation exposure to the public during considered in the preparation of the transportation and disposal. The in pact draft EIS. Comments received after that of radioactivity releases due to date will be considered to the extent unexpected occurrences will also be practicable, r
assessed. For any alternative Those not wishing to submit considered, en assessment of the impact comments or suggestions at this time, on the environment and life in the but who would like to receive a copy of vicinity of disposal sites will be made.
the draft EIS for review and comment The above list is not latended to be all when it is issued, should si.bmit their incluske not to be a predetermination of name and address to Captain Wagner at impacts
- the above address.
In accordance with the Council on
- Ensironmental Quality regulations for Datel January 11,1982.
corppliance with National P. B. Walker, Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)(40 cop'tah JAcc, US Navy, Alternare rederal CFR Part 1501), the Department of the Reg'aer carrifying Officer.
Navy is serving as the lead agency for irs o m n%wez eu.j 1
/
preparation of the EIS.The Department e m coo, m e_w of Energy (DOE) will participate as a cooperating agency with regard to the alternative of ;and disposal at DOE '
burial sites. By participating as a cooperating agenq, DOE obligations under NEPA will be fulfilled sad no
/
4 separate DOE EIS will be required.
Interested agencies, organizations, and the general public desiring to submit comnm1ts or suggestions for considt> ration in connection with the preparation and scoping of the draft EIS
- i are invited to <!o so. Scoping consists of identifyir.g lanes, inchwiing disposal
-l alternalaves and environmental impacts
}
to be assessed in the EIS. Upon l
l
{
.c 1,/ -
(
t}
i
/'
a:
m
+
Federal Register / Vol 47..No. 9 / Thursday, January 14. 1932 / Notices 2151 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Permanent Disposal of Decommissioned. Defueled Naval i
Submarine Reactor Plants; intent To Prepare a Dratt Environmental impact Statement The Department of the Navy announces its intent to prepare a generic environmental impact statement (EIS) to assess the environmentalimplications of 4
l alternatives that could be used by the Navy to pennanently dispose of decommissioned, defueled naval j
submarine reactor plants.
i i
%e proposed action is to determine which of two basic alternatives should be pursued for the permanent disposal of decommissioned defueled submarine reactor plants-either land or sea; and if land.to determine what sites are acceptable for such disposal.%e Navy has no immediate plans to dispose of i
any nuclear powered ships and no
[
decision has been made to do so.
L j
llowever, with over 100 nuclear-i powered submarines in operatim, the I
Navy is faced with eventual l
decommissioning of these ships at a i
~
future rate of possibly 3 or 4 per year l
over the next 30 years. and a permanent
)
means of disposal must be developed that 1s environmenta!!y acceptable.
i Following decommissioning. the reactor plants in the submarines do not contain nuclear fuel, transuranic elements or high level radioactive material. %ey i
will, however, contain low-level i
j
- adioactivity resalting from the operation of the reactors while the submarines were in commission.
4 he two basic alternatives for I
permanent disposal are land disposal l
and sea disposal Permanent disposal i
enn beshieved by removal of the submarine compartment that contains i
+
the defueled reactor followed by ~ -
shipment of the compartment by barge and overland trasnsporter to either of I
two accessible Federal land burial sites I
cun ently used by the Departm9nt of.
Energy for burial of low-level radioactive waste.%ese sites are in South Carolina (Savannah River Plant) and Washington (llanford plant).
Radiation levels associated with the I
entire operation would meet applicable requirements of the Department of Transportation. Nr. clear Regulatory l
Commission. and Department of Fnergy for tran'portation and disposal of solid low-level radioactivity. Alternatively, i
l permanent disposal of the defueled
?
sul marine reactor plants could be i
l achieved by sinking the entire l
decommissioned. defueled submarine in i
1 i
I
.