Nuclear Carrier Action Alert

[Diane Takvorian <ehcoalition@igc.apc.org>]

[This posting is from Laura Hunter <ehcoalition@igc.apc.org>]

ACTION ALERT AND STATUS REPORT ON
THE NUCLEARIZATION OF SAN DIEGO AND THE FUTURE AIRCRAFT CARRIER FLEET

Environmental Health Coalition (EHC ) would like to raise the following
recent Nuclear Navy activity to the attention of activists in the country and
seek your support. The continued strangle-hold of the Naval Reactors Office
over the Navy is being played out in San Diego in form of the Nuclear
Megaport Project in San Diego Bay. As devastating as this project is for San
Diego, it also has serious implications for the nation. The construction of
multiple nuclear repair facilities, dredging of San Diego Bay, construction
of what are essentially two in-bay waste landfills (one with hazardous
waste), the siting of combined nuclear power that far exceeds a commercial
reactor in the middle of a densely populated area (up to 18 separate
reactors), and construction of multiple waste treatment and storage
facilities including a mini-Ward Valley complete the picture of San Diego as
the nation's newest Naval Nuclear Sacrifice Zone. 

Add to this, the recent decision of the Defense Acquisition Board that the
next generation of aircraft carriers, the CVX generation, will be nuclear
powered and the problem expands to impact many communities. All of this
because Naval Reactors has the Navy is on a nuclear treadmill and refuses to
let it off, even when the opportunity to do so presents itself. 

We are requesting that supporters call Secretary Richard Danzig.
Please request that he:

1) direct his staff and project directors to conduct a new DEIS and
environmental analysis that fully, accurately, and comprehensively assesses
the entire Nuclear Carrier Megaport Project and,

2) stay the decision of the Defense Acquisition Board to make the CVX
generation of carriers nuclear-powered until a full environmental and
economic assessment can be completed on the entire nuclear home porting
program, and a solution is determined for current and future generations of
carriers-a solution that meets the Navy mission and poses the least threat to
human health and the environment. 

3) meet with local San Diego community members to hear directly about their
concerns. 

Please call or write:
Secretary Richard Danzig
Secretary of the Navy
1000 Navy Pentagon
Room 4E686
Washington D.C. 20350-1000
(703) 695-3131

BACKGROUND
1. A new complete, accurate, and comprehensive environmental analysis should
be conducted prior to the final nuclear home porting and propulsion
decisions. 

Current Status of the Nuclear Megaport in San Diego

 The Navy has already successfully implemented many of the necessary elements
of the Nuclear Megaport. It strategically divided the environmental impacts
of the project into 5 different assessments, severely segmenting the impacts. 
Only one of seven public hearings was held in San Diego. None of the
hearings was attended by the official that made the decision on the document
or the permit i.e. the public has yet to speak to a decision-maker about any
aspect of this project. A clear violation of democratic principles. The
Navy self-certifies its NEPA documents and then self-regulates the most
dangerous aspects of the project from afar (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
regulates the radiological aspects of the project). We are left as an
occupied community without access to decision makers or any voice in our
future. The most recent environmental document was the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Developing Home Port Facilities for Three NIMITZ-Class
Aircraft Carriers in Support of the U.S. Pacific Fleet (DEIS). The public
comment period closed on November 12, 1998. 

Seven Independent Technical Experts agree-the DEIS is fatally flawed

 The DEIS is a highly flawed document and is unsuitable for determining
impacts on the community. Both EHC and the City of Coronado hired multiple
technical experts to conduct an independent review of the DEIS. All came to
the same conclusion-the DEIS is fatally flawed and needs to be redone and
reissued. 

 To quote from the City of Coronado's letter "...the City of Coronado has
determined that the Navy's DEIS is so inadequate as to preclude meaningful
analysis, and therefore demands that a revised DEIS be prepared..." Our
technical experts' review supported this conclusion. 

 In general, the all of the consultants that reviewed other aspects of the
DEIS all found that the information was deficient and did not allow for
independent verification. 

Unfortunately, the Navy certifies its own environmental documents.

The DEIS should be redone and recirculated before any final decision is made. 

2. The recent decision for a nuclear CVX places San Diego and other
communities at additional risks without benefit of any environmental
analysis. 

 The recent decision of the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) that the next
generation of aircraft carriers, the CVX generation will be nuclear powered
expands and extends the impact to ours and other communities. There has been
no environmental review process of this significant decision of which we are
aware or have been notified. The development and construction of new,
long-term nuclear technology has a myriad of environmental impacts, all of
which impact communities and all of which need to be analyzed in the public
arena. 

The GAO report, Navy Aircraft Carriers: Cost-Effectiveness of
Conventionally and Nuclear Powered Carriers, finds nuclear propulsion
costly and unnecessary to meet Navy mission

 One of the largest failings of the DEIS is that it did not assess the
impacts of the entire nuclear home porting project or reflect current
information. In the DEIS the Navy concludes that "Nuclear propulsion
significantly enhances the military capability of aircraft carriers" .
However, this has recently been disproved. An August, 1998 Government
Accounting Office (GAO) report revealed that nuclear powered carriers (CVN)
offer no discernible advantages compared to conventionally powered carriers
(CV). This report contains significant new information that should be
reflected in the environmental analysis. The GAO report considered several
issues related to the CVN nuclear propulsion and found, after very thorough
analysis, that the CVNs are far more expensive to operate and maintain,
costing in excess of $8 billion more, and could cause problems with forward
deployment of carriers in the Pacific region. The $8 billion figure is very
understated. For example, the GAO admits that waste will be dangerous for
thousands of years yet it only included the cost of 100 years of waste
storage on the nuclear tab. 

 The GAO also found that conventional carriers spend less time in maintenance
and can be available sooner for a large scale crisis because it is easier to
accelerate or compress their maintenance schedules. The GAO's analysis also
demonstrates that a force of 12 conventional carrier groups can provide a
greater level of overseas presence than can a larger nuclear carrier force of
13 carriers. 

 Further, acquisition costs of a nuclear carrier are twice as expensive and
mid-life modernization (refueling/refurbishing) is at least three times as
expensive (compare $866 million with $2.4 billion). Deactivation is almost 20
times more costly ($52 million compared to $955 million) due to the costs of
removing nuclear contaminated equipment and spent fuel. We would also add to
the list all the other associated health and environmental problems of
nuclear reactors. 

 The bottom line is that the GAO's analysis shows that conventionally powered
carriers can meet the Navy's mission and strategic needs at a significantly
lower life-cycle cost. It is clear that the pursuit of non-nuclear propulsion
for the next generation of carriers would avoid significant costs and could
protect public health and the environment--all without compromising military
readiness. 

But, the DAB has sealed our fate without any public input

 In spite of the findings of this study, in September, just one month after
the release of the GAO report, the Defense Acquisition Board met and sealed
our fate with a single decision about the CVX carriers-that they would be
nuclear (Jane's Defence Weekly October 8,1998, US future carriers will be
nuclear-powered) . As far as we know, this commitment of (at a minimum) $40
billion tax dollars and related health and environmental costs was made
without any public input. The considerable cost of mining, hauling,
operations, and thousands of years of waste storage of the deadly nuclear
materials was not even considered or debated in a public forum. This action
on the part of the DAB appears to continue the Naval Reactors' pursuit of a
larger nuclear program than we need at the expense of democracy and public
and environmental health. There is no reason why San Diego and the rest of
the nation should have to support naval reactors that we can't afford, don't
need, and that, in fact, put our lives and the health of our communities at
risk. This decision impacts not only San Diego where the carriers may
ultimately end up, but also the many communities that are impacted by the
mining, transport of dangerous waste, construction of nuclear reactors,
re-fueling and de-fueling, and storage of the waste. 

The Navy has an option, and an obligation, to turn away from a nuclear
propulsion in the future carriers

 It is clear that the Navy could turn away from nuclear-propulsion in
aircraft carriers without sacrificing military readiness or storage. One such
credible design for a new conventional carrier can be found in a document
from the Defense Technical Information Center titled A Short Take Off,
Vertical Landing Carrier, S-CVX.(DTIC # ADA345638). This carrier design
holds 60 aircraft while using a smaller personnel group with smaller size and
conventional power. The recent Defense Acquisition Board decision to pursue
a nuclear CVX should be set aside so that other alternatives should be
analyzed and so should recent decisions by DOD to put more money into
research and development for a nuclear CVX. An environmental impact study of
this decision should be conducted. Use of conventionally powered CVX
carriers could greatly reduce the threat to public safety and the environment
in the future from this project, could save money, and is a reasonable
alternative. 

Community Opposition in San Diego

 EHC continues to strongly fight the Navy's plans to home port three
nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with related repair and waste storage
facilities in San Diego Bay. As the Navy's plans have expanded people have
become increasingly concerned about the impacts of this project. On October
28, the Navy held its first public hearing in San Diego on the project which
was attended by an overflow crowd of almost 300 people. In addition, over
1000 people from residents in 31 different communities have requested that
they be on the record as opposing the project. 

 In addition, the Navy paid no attention to the environmental justice issues
of this project, preferring rather to confine the "area of impact" to
Coronado, a wealthy, white community directly adjacent to the base. This
exclusionary strategy was borne out in the public hearings. Although almost
100 of those in attendance at the hearing were from the primarily
Spanish-speaking, downwind communities of Barrio Logan, National City, and
Sherman Heights, there was no translation available at the hearing and none
of the documentation was produced in Spanish, even though it had been
requested by San Diego Mayor Susan Golding. The DEIS dismisses the idea that
downwind communities will be impacted and continues to consider Coronado the
only impacted community. The DEIS does little to address the issues of
exposure through fish consumption or toxic or radiological air releases. 

 The day after the hearing, several hundred people called the office of the
Secretary of the Navy requesting an audience with him in San Diego to hear
our concerns about the project. Although he visited San Diego two days after
his appointment, no contact with community residents was made. 

We urge supporters to help us by writing and calling
Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig
Secretary of the Navy
1000 Navy Pentagon
Room 4E686
Washington D.C. 20350-1000
(703) 695-3131

Please request that he:

1) direct his staff and project directors to conduct a new DEIS that fully,
accurately, and comprehensively assesses the entire Nuclear Megaport Project
and,

2) stay the decision if the Defense Acquisition Board to make the CVX
generation of carriers nuclear-powered until a full environmental and
economic assessment can be completed on the entire nuclear home porting
program, and then a solution is determined for current and future generations
of carriers-a solution that meets the Navy mission and poses the least threat
to human health and the environment. 

3) meet with local community members to hear from the community directly
about their concerns. 

 This is issue is being significantly under covered in the media. Compared to
the massive opposition by California elected officials and extensive media
coverage on Ward Valley, this presence of up to 18 nuclear reactors and a
mini-Ward valley (self-regulated no less) in the middle of the nation's 6th
largest city goes, apparently, unnoticed. Elected officials, for the most
part, will not get involved. 

 This nuclearization of San Diego will ensure a continued nuclear future for
the nation with all the attendant risks. We are seeking your help so that we
can break the choke-hold of Naval Reactors over the Navy and turn back the
nuclear CVX decision. 

We would greatly appreciate hearing from any one who has information on these
or related issues. 

Please call or email me with any questions or information. We will keep you
posted. 

Laura Hunter, Director
Clean Bay Campaign
Environmental Health Coalition
ehcoalition@igc.org
(619) 235-0281
FAX (619) 232-3670