Island Watch

Spent Nuclear Fuel at Pearl Harbor: Four Containers Full, Two More at the Ready

As of November 9, 1994, four containers of spent nuclear fuel from decommissioned Navy submarines were being held at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. According to the shipyard’s public information officer, two additional containers sit empty, awaiting spent nuclear fuel from planned decommissionings.

The shipyard confirmed reports that Pearl Harbor was gearing up for defueling — and possibly even refueling — of 688-class, or Los Angeles class, submarines, vessels larger than any yet decommissioned in Hawai`i. In response to questions from Environment Hawai`i, the shipyard released the following statement:

“With the closure of Mare Island and Charleston Naval Shipyard, equipment to support defueling and refueling of SSN 688 Class submarines is being transferred from Mare Island and Charleston to Pearl Harbor. With this equipment, Pearl Harbor will have the necessary facilities to defuel and refuel SSN 688 class submarines.”

If Pearl Harbor shipyard begins refueling submarines, it will mark a change in recent shipyard activity. The last time any nuclear-powered submarine was refueled at Pearl Harbor was in 1984.

The Navy has said that the storage of spent nuclear fuel at Pearl Harbor will last only to the end of June 1995. At that time, shipment of the SNF containers will be made to a site to be determined at the end of an as-yet uncompleted environmental review process.

With the June deadline looming, will the Navy be able to meet that deadline?

Army Abandons Effort For Makua OB/OD Permit

The Army has informed the Environmental Protection Agency that it is no longer seeking the permit necessary for continued use of Makua Valley as a site for destroying waste munitions. The permit would have allowed ongoing use of a portion of the valley as an open burn/open detonation (OB/OD) area where unserviceable ordnance is blown up or burned.

The Army notified the EPA of its decision by letter dated September 2, 1994, from Colonel John M. Campbell. On October 18, the EPA Region IX office in San Francisco acceded to the Army’s request, provided the Army met the requirements of federal law for closure of a hazardous waste disposal unit. Those requirements include, among other things, soil and water monitoring protocols as well as clean-up work, if needed.

The Army’s decision to stop using Makua Valley for weapons disposal — the activity that required the EPA permit — does not mean that the Makua OB/OD site will fall into disuse. Far from it. As we have reported earlier, the disposal of unserviceable munitions represents only a small fraction of the disposal of all munitions at Makua. Most of the open burning and open detonation of explosives is done under the rubric of training, and hence is exempt (at the moment) from regulation by the EPA as a hazardous waste disposal activity. In 1992, for example, 50 tons of munitions (the weight does not count the casings) were blown up at Makua in the course of training; by contrast, the OB/OD site was used to destroy just 2 tons of unserviceable munitions.

It is unclear just how the OB/OD site can be officially closed, in satisfaction of federal regulations, while the Army continues to use the site for training purposes. The Army was given until mid-December to submit its formal closure plan for the site, which might address this issue.

According to Stan Tulledo, an Army spokesman, all unserviceable munitions in Hawai`i are now being shipped to the mainland for disposal at an EPA-approved facility. He would not identify the disposal site or sites further.

Old Bombs Never Die…

In recent months, explosive devices left over from World War II were found on Moloka`i and the Big Island. In August, tourists from California found a rusted bomb that had washed up on a beach at Kaluakoi, with its firing pin still intact. A month later, two fifth-grade pupils at Waikoloa Elementary School found a 105-millimeter high explosive round partly buried on school grounds. According to news reports, the fuse had been sheared off the shell, but the explosives inside continued to pose a danger. The Waikoloa area was used during for military training purposes in 1941 and 1942. It was the subject of an exhaustive “de-dudding” exercise in the 1950s and 1960s, before wide-scale development occurred in the area.

`Aiea Incinerator To Leave State Land

United Environmental Services, Inc., has been informed that its application for a permit to occupy state land in `Aiea for purposes of operating a medical waste incinerator has been denied. (UES’ occupancy of state land was the subject of the [url=/members_archives/archives_more.php?id=1315_0_30_0_C]cover article[/url] in the November 1994 issue of Environment Hawai`i.)

Land Board Chairman Keith Ahue informed the company’s owner, Samuel Gomes, of the termination of the “former revocable permit” by letter dated October 26, 1994 and drafted by the Division of Land Management’s O`ahu land agent, Cecil Santos.

In explaining his action, Ahue mentions concerns expressed by residents living near the facility at the `Aiea Neighborhood Board’s meeting in October, as well as letters from the public commenting on the draft Environmental Assessment that UES had prepared in the course of seeking (belated) agency approval for its operations. The draft EA, Ahue went on to say, was itself inadequate in failing to describe impacts, alternative processes, and other possible sites.

“We believe there is an alternative,” Ahue continued, “and as we have recommended earlier, we still think that this furnace should be located out in the Campbell Industrial area. People are very sensitive to a medical waste incinerator located close to them. They visualize hands and feet being burned and it upsets them. We know this sounds dramatic, but that is how many of our citizens feel.”

Finally, Ahue informed Gomes of the fact that the `Aiea site was part of land set aside for future use by the Division of State Parks. “They have informed us by memo that they are opposed to this operation on lands set aside to them,” he wrote. UES was told to remove the incinerator and all related equipment from the site within by November 25.

UES had attempted to take over the revocable permit that had been issued to United Towing Services. At the meeting of the Board of Land and Natural Resources on November 18, 1994, that permit was approved — along with several hundred others — for another year’s extension. According to Santos of the Division of Land Management, the Land Board would be asked in December to cancel that permit, which, in any case, has not been used by United Towing in the fashion allowed by the permit since early 1993, at the latest.

Navy Battles Whale Sanctuary

The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary has run up against the U.S. Navy in its plans to include waters surrounding all inhabited islands within sanctuary boundaries.
The Navy made its “significant objections” known to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which administers the sanctuary program, in a letter dated July 27, 1994 and signed by Admiral W.A. Retz. Specifically, the Navy objects to inclusion of the area around Kaula Rock and Bellows Air Force Base, of Kane`ohe and Kailua bays, and waters of the Pacific Missile Range Facility off Barking Sands, Kaua`i. Retz argued that there was no scientific basis for adding these areas to the sanctuary, especially when this could threaten Department of Defense training operations.

The Office of State Planning indicated that the state might not agree — as it eventually must — to the whale sanctuary boundaries if Navy issues were unresolved. “While we remain committed to the process, there are still issues that may make it difficult for the state — at the point in time that decisions must be made — to agree that the state’s waters should be part of the sanctuary,” OSP Director Norma Wong informed NOAA on October 18.

Closed Season Proposed For Beleaguered Onaga

A task force convened by Representative Ken Hiraki has come up with a proposal intended to let the onaga, or red snapper, recover from the pressures of overfishing in Hawai`i waters. According to a spokesman at the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, there is tentative agreement among almost all parties that a closed season for onaga should be adopted. The spokesman added that, although the state Department of Land and Natural Resources’ Division of Aquatic Resources could impose a closed season through adoption of administrative rules, the task force will more likely ask the Legislature to pass a law requiring the closed season. In the past, the Division of Aquatic Resources has been reluctant to take steps needed to prevent overfishing of onaga.

As described by the spokesman, the closed season will apply to onaga not just in waters under the state’s control (out to three miles), but to onaga in federally controlled waters as well. Even though the onaga under federal control are not as overfished as those in state waters, closing onaga fishing in both areas is necessary to allow enforcement of the closed season.

(For more on this subject, scroll down to the [url=/members_archives/archives1994.php]March 1994[/url] edition of Environment Hawai`i).

Final EIS Submitted For Ka`u Spaceport

The state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism has published a final Environmental Impact Statement for a commercial satellite launch facility to be built at Palima Point, in the Big Island district of Ka`u. A notice in the November 23, 1994, Bulletin of the Office of Environmental Quality Control describes the document as an EIS for a “conceptual plan” for the facility.

The spaceport project has been moribund for more than a year now — a fact that seems to be acknowledged in the notice DBEDT submitted to the OEQC. “The state of Hawai`i does not anticipate further active participation in the launch site initiative at the present time,” the notice states. “A supplemental environmental impact statement — which would be the responsibility of the private developer — and various licenses, permits, and agreements with state, county and federal agencies would have to be completed before a launch facility could be developed at Palima Point. Development of such a facility by private industry would only occur if driven by sufficient demand for commercial launch services.”

Volume 5, Number 6 December 1994