[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46787-46790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22607]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for 
the Construction and Operation of an Accelerator for the Production of 
Tritium at the Savannah River Site

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to prepare 
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Construction and 
Operation of an Accelerator for the Production of Tritium at the 
Savannah River Site pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 USC 4321 et seq.). DOE intends to select 
various options and a location on the Savannah River Site (SRS) for the 
construction and operation of an accelerator to produce tritium to 
support the nuclear weapons stockpile, as announced in the Record of 
Decision for the Tritium Supply and Recycling Environmental Impact 
Statement.
    DOE has also decided to prepare an EIS for the Construction and 
Operation of a Tritium Extraction Facility at the SRS. That EIS is the 
subject of a separate Notice of Intent (NOI), but will have scoping 
meetings concurrent with the Accelerator Production of Tritium (APT) 
EIS scoping meetings.

DATES: Comments from the public and others will be accepted during the 
scoping period, which will continue until November 1, 1996. Written 
comments submitted by mail should be postmarked by that date to ensure 
consideration. DOE will consider comments mailed after that date to the 
extent practicable. DOE will conduct public scoping meetings to assist 
in defining the appropriate scope of the EIS and identifying 
significant environmental issues to be addressed. Meetings for the APT 
EIS will be held concurrently with those of the Operation of the 
Tritium Extraction Facility EIS, with separate workshops possible 
depending on attendance levels. Notices of the dates, times, and 
locations of the scoping meetings will be announced in the local media 
at least 15 days before the meetings.

ADDRESSES: Please direct written comments or suggestions on the scope 
of the EIS, requests to speak at the public scoping meetings, and 
questions concerning the project to: Mr. Andrew R. Grainger, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box 5031, 
Aiken, SC 29804-5031; phone 1-800-242-8269; or E-mail: [email protected]
r.com. Mark envelopes: ``Accelerator Production of Tritium EIS 
Comments''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the DOE 
NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office 
of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585; telephone 202-586-
4600; or to leave a message at 1-800- 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SRS is an 800 square kilometer (300 square 
mile) controlled access area located in southwestern South Carolina. 
The Site is approximately 25 miles southeast of Augusta, Georgia, and 
20 miles south of Aiken, South Carolina. Since its establishment, the 
mission of SRS has been to produce nuclear materials that support the 
defense, research, and medical programs of the United States.
    With the end of the Cold War and the reduction in the size of the 
U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, there is no longer a requirement to 
produce new nuclear materials for defense purposes with the exception 
of tritium. As a result, activities at SRS have shifted from nuclear 
material production to cleanup and environmental restoration. All 
production reactors are permanently shut down. However, a new source of 
tritium is needed to support the nuclear weapons stockpile well into 
the twenty-first century. Tritium has a relatively short half life 
(12.3 years) and therefore must be periodically replenished in each 
weapon in the stockpile.
    The Department evaluated the programmatic need for a new tritium 
source in a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for 
Tritium Supply and Recycling (DOE/EIS-0161, October 1995). Based on the 
findings in the PEIS and other technical, cost, and schedule 
evaluations, the Department issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on 
December 5, 1995 (60 FR 63877, December 12, 1995). In the ROD, the 
Department decided to pursue a dual-track approach on the two most 
promising tritium supply alternatives: (1) To initiate purchase of an 
existing commercial reactor (operating or partially complete) for 
conversion to a defense facility, or purchase of irradiation services 
with an option to purchase the reactor; and (2) to design, build, and 
test critical components of an accelerator system for tritium 
production. Within a three-year period, the Department would select one 
of these approaches to serve as the primary source of tritium. The 
other alternative, if feasible, would continue to be developed as a 
backup tritium source. SRS was selected as the location for an 
accelerator, should one be built. Under the ROD, the tritium recycling 
facilities at SRS would be upgraded and consolidated, and a tritium 
extraction facility would be constructed at SRS to support both of the 
dual-track options.
    The Department's strategy for compliance with NEPA has been, first, 
to make decisions on programmatic alternatives as described and 
evaluated in the Tritium Supply and Recycling PEIS. This evaluation was 
intended to

[[Page 46788]]

be followed by site-specific analyses to implement the selected 
programmatic decisions. The decisions made in the December 5, 1995, ROD 
have resulted in the Department proposing to prepare the following NEPA 
documents:
    1. An EIS for the Selection of One or More Commercial Light Water 
Reactors for Tritium Production
    2. An EIS for the Construction and Operation of an Accelerator for 
the Production of Tritium at the Savannah River Site
    3. An Environmental Assessment for the Tritium Facility 
Modnerzation and Consolidation at the Savannah River Site
    4. An EIS for the Construction and Operation of a Tritium 
Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site

The EIS that is the subject of this NOI is the second of the proposed 
NEPA documents listed above. The preparation of the EIS for 
Construction and Operation of the Accelerator for Production of Tritium 
supports the planning within the Department for a long-term supply of 
tritium. However, the Department has not yet decided to actually build 
the accelerator. As noted in the Record of Decision for the Tritium 
Supply and Recycling PEIS, about three years of feasibility 
demonstration research are needed before the Department will decide 
whether the accelerator would be the lead (or backup) technology for 
tritium production.
    Accelerator Production of Tritium: Production of tritium in an 
accelerator would occur through the following process: Protons are 
produced in an injector by ionizing hydrogen atoms to form a proton 
beam. The proton beam is initially accelerated by a series of radio-
frequency magnetic sectors to increase the proton beam to its final 
speed of approximately 90% the speed of light. In each of these 
sections, electrical energy is converted to microwave energy by 
klystrons (a vacuum tube that converts electrical power into high power 
microwaves). The proton beam is then expanded to distribute the protons 
evenly across the face of a tungsten target. The proton beam strikes 
the target, producing neutrons by a process called spallation. 
Additional neutrons are produced and then slowed in a blanket assembly 
composed of lead and water which surrounds the target. The blanket also 
contains pipes with either helium-3 gas or solid lithium-6 aluminum 
alloy targets that capture the neutrons to produce tritium. The tritium 
is extracted continuously from the helium-3 in a co-located tritium 
separation facility. The lithium-6 aluminum alloy targets must be 
periodically removed and shipped to a nearby Tritium Extraction 
Facility for batch removal of the tritium. The accelerator will be 
designed with the capacity to produce up to 3 kilograms of tritium per 
year.
    The construction and operation impacts of the alternatives will be 
examined in this EIS. The alternatives to be considered are 
combinations of site location and technology options:
    1. Site location options: An initial evaluation of the entire SRS 
was made using four categories of disqualifying conditions: ecology, 
human health, geology/hydrology, and engineering. This evaluation 
identified those parts of the site where an APT could not be sited. A 
footprint 2000 meters long and 500 meters wide (247 acres) was used to 
identify potential locations. This size was considered conservative and 
bounding. Once disqualified locations were identified, a second set of 
screening criteria was used on the remaining candidates to evaluate the 
suitability of each particular site, based on impact to twenty-one 
factors: (1) Terrestrial ecology; (2) Aquatic ecology; (3) Wetland 
ecology; (4) Distance to population centers; (5) Distance to SRS 
boundary; (6) Impact of incidents at existing facilities on APT; (7) 
Ability of groundwater to supply 6000 gpm (0.38 m3 /sec); (8) 
Depth to groundwater; (9) Stability of subsurface conditions; (10) 
Thermal capacity of soil; (11) Distance to the tritium loading 
facility; (12) Distance to rail lines; (13) Archaeology; (14) Distance 
to acceptable road; (15) Terrain; (16) Foundation conditions; (17) 
Distance to NPDES discharge point; (18) Distance to site utilities; 
(19) Distance to Centralized Sewage Treatment Plant tie-in; (20) 
Disruption to site infrastructure; and (21) Presence of existing waste 
site. Based on this evaluation scores were calculated and the potential 
sites ranked, as described below:

    Proposed Action: A site located 3 miles northeast of the Tritium 
Loading Facility (TLF), formerly known as the Replacement Tritium 
Facility (RTF) (Building 233-H in H-Area); ALTERNATIVE: a site located 
2 miles northwest of the TLF. OTHER ALTERNATIVES, which were dismissed 
from detailed analysis, included eight potential locations; these were 
screened out in a siting study based on the 21 factors listed above.
    2. Cooling water system options: PROPOSED ACTION: Mechanical draft 
cooling towers with river water makeup. ALTERNATIVES: once-through 
cooling using river water; mechanical draft cooling towers with 
groundwater makeup; and use of the K-Reactor cooling tower with river 
water makeup.
    A study performed at SRS evaluated these four choices for cooling. 
In some cases, parts of the existing River Water System would be used. 
As described in the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement for Shutdown of the River Water System (61 FR 29744), some 
portions of the River Water System could be placed in a higher state of 
readiness than in ``layup'' condition, and could be restarted in a 
relatively short period of time. The use of river water makeup to 
mechanical draft cooling towers was used as the base case for 
comparison and is the proposed cooling mechanism. Under this 
alternative, major portions of the existing River Water System would be 
upgraded or replaced with modern components. Approximately 6000 gpm 
(0.38 m\3\/sec) of makeup water would be supplied to the cooling water 
system to make up for losses due to blowdown and evaporation. Blowdown 
would be directed to Par Pond.
    With the second alternative, once-through cooling, approximately 
125,000 gpm (7.88 m\3\/sec) of river water would flow through heat 
exchangers and discharge to Par Pond. The third cooling water 
alternative would use 6000 gpm (0.38 m\3\/sec) of groundwater makeup to 
the cooling water system to make up for losses due to blowdown and 
evaporation. This alternative would also use mechanical draft cooling 
towers. Blowdown would be directed to Par Pond. The fourth cooling 
water alternative would involve the existing K- Reactor natural draft 
cooling tower. Approximately 125,000 gpm (7.88 m\3\/sec) of cooling 
water would circulate from heat exchangers at the APT to the cooling 
tower. This alternative would need 6000 gpm (0.38 m\3\/sec) of river 
water makeup. Blowdown would be directed to Pen Branch, which flows 
into the Savannah River.
    Two cooling water alternatives were eliminated in the study. The 
first was to use Par Pond as a source of once-through cooling water for 
the APT. This alternative was eliminated based on cost and technical 
uncertainty, due to the conditions of the components in the Par Pond 
pump house. The second alternative dismissed was to construct a new 
cooling pond to dissipate heat. Preliminary estimates of the size of 
pond necessary to dissipate the heat indicated the need for a very 
large pond, which would present permitting and environmental issues 
greater than those under other alternatives.

[[Page 46789]]

    3. Accelerator technology: PROPOSED ACTION: room temperature. 
ALTERNATIVE: superconducting.
    A room temperature accelerator has a higher demand for electricity 
when compared to a superconducting accelerator. In an accelerator, 
large currents are set up inside metal cavities, which in turn create 
the electric fields that accelerate the proton beam. Energy losses 
occur as a result of the internal resistance of the cavity material. In 
a room temperature accelerator, these energy losses are significant. In 
a superconducting accelerator, the cavities are cooled to the point 
that resistance is negligible, thus minimizing the energy loss. A room 
temperature accelerator by definition requires no special temperature 
for operation, but a superconducting APT would require the construction 
and operation of a cryogenic plant in the APT complex.
    4. Target physics: PROPOSED ACTION: Blanket type: Helium-3. 
ALTERNATIVE: Lithium-6 Aluminum alloy blanket.
    The proposed blanket utilizes helium-3. Through neutron capture, 
the helium-3 is converted to tritium, which can be extracted 
continuously in the co-located tritium separations facility. The 
lithium-6 aluminum alloy blanket through neutron capture converts 
lithium to tritium and helium-4. The lithium-6 aluminum alloy is a 
metal, which must be removed and the tritium extracted in a batch 
process. This extraction would take place in the Tritium Extraction 
Facility (TEF). The impacts of extraction will be discussed in the 
separate EIS being prepared for the TEF.
    5. Accelerator Power Source: PROPOSED ACTION: Radio frequency (RF) 
power tube (klystron). ALTERNATIVE: Inductive-Output Tube (IOT).
    A klystron is an evacuated electron-beam tube that is used as an 
oscillator/amplifier in ultrahigh frequency circuits like television 
transmitters and radar equipment. In the APT, klystrons are used as RF 
power amplifiers to convert electric power to amplified RF (microwave) 
power which in turn accelerates the protons. An IOT is an RF amplifier 
currently under development. Its different design results in an 
improved efficiency and lower electrical power requirements.
    6. Electric power supply: PROPOSED ACTION: Existing sources. 
ALTERNATIVE: a new power plant.
    Because of the APT's power requirements (up to approximately 550 
megawatts), the options for availability and reliability of the 
electric power supply to the accelerator will be analyzed. The purchase 
of power from South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) is the proposed 
option. This option includes system upgrades, capacitor bank or an 
additional 230 KV transmission line and a storage device, and use of an 
open access strategy. A second option is the generation of 550 
megawatts from a generic new fossil fuel generating plant at an unknown 
location. This option would require a subsequent environmental analysis 
to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, if 
it is selected.

Proposed Action

    DOE proposes to design a room temperature APT which is cooled using 
mechanical draft cooling towers with river water to make up for losses. 
Klystrons would supply the RF power, and helium-3 would capture 
neutrons. The APT would be located at the proposed site (see above) and 
would use existing sources of electricity.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    One alternative to the proposed action is not to select a 
technology or site. This is the No Action alternative required by the 
Council on Environmental Quality regulations. Under this alternative, 
the stockpile demands for tritium would have to be met through other 
means, such as the existing commercial reactor discussed above.
    Other alternatives to the proposed action consist of any 
combination of the above APT technologies and two sites. Because of the 
large number of combinations, DOE will not explicitly describe the 
impacts of each possible combination. However, the EIS will describe 
the individual impacts of each option, and allow the reader to combine 
effects from any desired combination. In addition, DOE will identify 
the combination that has the most impact on the environment, thus 
providing a bounding case for comparison.

Identification of Environmental and Other Issues

    The Department has identified the following issues for analysis for 
proposed and alternative actions in the EIS. Additional issues may be 
identified as a result of the scoping process.
    1. Public and Worker Safety, Health Risk Assessment: Radiological 
and nonradiological impacts including projected effects on workers and 
the public from construction, operation and accident conditions.
    2. Impacts from releases to air, water, and soil.
    3. Impacts to plants, animals, and habitat, including impacts to 
wetlands, and threatened or endangered species and their habitat.
    4. The consumption of natural resources and energy including water 
and natural gas.
    5. Socioeconomic impacts to affected communities from construction 
and operation on labor forces and project purchases in the SRS area.
    6. Environmental justice: Disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.
    7. Impacts to cultural resources such as historic, archaeological, 
scientific, or culturally important sites.
    8. Compliance with all applicable Federal, state, and local 
statutes and regulations; required Federal and state environmental 
consultations and notifications; and DOE Orders on waste management, 
waste minimization initiatives, and environmental protection.
    9. Cumulative impacts from the proposed action and other past, 
present, and reasonably foreseeable actions at the SRS.
    10. Potential irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 
resources.
    11. Pollution prevention and waste management practices, including 
waste characterization, storage, treatment and disposal.
    Public Scoping Process: DOE will conduct public scoping meetings to 
assist in defining the appropriate scope of the EIS and to identify 
significant environmental issues to be addressed. Because another EIS 
for a separate tritium-related activity at SRS is commencing 
simultaneously (the TEF; see the notice in today's Federal Register), 
the public scoping meetings for the APT will be held concurrently with 
the public scoping meetings for the TEF EIS. DOE will begin each 
scoping meeting with an overview of tritium activities at SRS. 
Following the initial presentation, DOE will hold workshops on the APT 
and the TEF. These will either be separate workshops or a combined 
workshop depending on attendance levels. There will be two sessions at 
each meeting location. Copies of handouts from the meetings will be 
available to those unable to attend by writing Mr. Grainger at the 
address above, or by calling 1-800-242-8269.
    Public notices on the dates, times, and locations of the scoping 
meetings will be announced in the local media at least 15 days before 
the meetings. DOE is committed to providing opportunities for the 
involvement of interested individuals and groups in this and other DOE 
planning activities.
    The public, organizations, and agencies are invited to present oral 
and

[[Page 46790]]

written comments concerning (1) the scope of the EIS, (2) the issues 
the EIS should address, and (3) the alternatives the EIS should 
analyze. Please address written comments to Mr. Grainger at the address 
indicated above. These comments should be postmarked by November 1, 
1996 to ensure full consideration.
    Organizations and individuals wishing to participate in the public 
meeting can call 1-800-242-8269 between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM Eastern 
Time, Monday through Friday, or submit their requests to Mr. Grainger 
at the address indicated above. DOE requests that anyone who wishes to 
speak at the scoping meeting preregister by contacting Mr. Grainger, 
either by phone or in writing. Preregistration should occur at least 
two days before the designated meeting. Persons who have not 
preregistered to speak may register at the meeting and will be called 
on to speak as time permits.
    Related Documentation: Completed and ongoing environmental reviews 
both may affect the scope of this EIS. Background information is listed 
below on past, present, and future activities at the Savannah River 
Site.
    Final Interim Management of Nuclear Materials Environmental Impact 
Statement, DOE/EIS-0220, 1995. This EIS contains information on DOE 
waste management activities which could be affected by APT waste 
streams.
    Final Savannah River Site Waste Management, DOE/EIS-0217, 1995. 
This EIS contains information on SRS waste management activities which 
could be affected by APT waste streams.
    Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Tritium 
Supply and Recycling, DOE/DOE-0161, 1995. This PEIS presents a 
programmatic environmental analysis of various ways to produce tritium, 
including commercial light water reactors, and the APT technology, 
including the location of an accelerator at SRS, if DOE decides to 
proceed with the APT.
    Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile 
Stewardship and Management, DOE/EIS-0236, February, 1996. The 
cumulative analysis of the PEIS includes the impacts at the Savannah 
River Site from the Tritium Supply and Recycling Programmatic EIS for 
the construction of an accelerator, an upgraded tritium recycling 
facility, and an extraction facility.
    Environmental Assessment for the Natural Fluctuation of Water Level 
In Par Pond and Reduced Water Flow In Steel Creek Below L Lake at the 
Savannah River Site, DOE/EA-1070, 1995. This EA contains information on 
PAR Pond, which could receive cooling water blowdown from some of the 
cooling options examined for the APT.
    Environmental Impact Statement for Shutdown of the River Water 
System, DOE/EIS-0268 (in preparation; see 61 FR 29744).
    Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation 
of a Tritium Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site, (see 
notice in today's Federal Register).
    Environmental Assessment for the Tritium Facility Modernization and 
Consolidation, (anticipated). The environmental assessment is to 
include the impacts of modernizing and consolidating the existing 
tritium recycling facilities at the Savannah River Site.
    This information is available in the following two DOE public 
reading rooms: DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, Room 1E-190, 
Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20585, phone 202-586-6020; and DOE Public Document Room, University of 
South Carolina, Aiken Campus, University Library, 2nd Floor, 171 
University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801, phone 803-648-6851.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., this 29th day of August, 1996.
Peter N. Brush,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety, and Health.
[FR Doc. 96-22607 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P