[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 93 (Friday, May 14, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26369-26386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12019]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Consolidated Record of Decision for Tritium Supply and Recycling

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Consolidated Record of decision for tritium supply and 
recycling.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) completed the Tritium 
Supply and Recycling Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 
(PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0161) in October 1995. The Tritium Supply and Recycling 
PEIS assessed the potential environmental impacts of technology and 
siting alternatives for the production of tritium for national security 
purposes as well as the impacts of constructing a new Tritium 
Extraction Facility (TEF) at the Department's Savannah River Site near 
Aiken, SC.
    On December 5, 1995, DOE issued a Tritium Supply and Recycling 
Record of Decision (ROD) [60 FR 63878] that selected the two most 
promising alternative technologies for tritium production and 
established a dual-track strategy that would, within 3 years, select 
one of those technologies to become the primary tritium supply 
technology. The other technology, if feasible, would be developed as a 
backup tritium source. Under the dual-track strategy, DOE would: (1) 
Initiate the purchase of an existing commercial reactor (operating or 
partially complete) or irradiation services with an option to purchase 
the reactor for conversion to a defense facility; and (2) design, 
build, and test critical components of an accelerator system for 
tritium production. Any new facilities that might be required, the 
production-scale accelerator and a Tritium Extraction Facility to 
support the commercial reactor alternative, would be constructed at 
DOE's Savannah River Site. Subsequent to the PEIS and the December 5, 
1995 ROD, DOE prepared three site-specific EISs: the Accelerator 
Production of Tritium at the Savannah River Site (APT) (DOE/EIS-0270), 
the Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor (CLWR) 
(DOE/EIS-0288), and the Tritium Extraction Facility at Savannah River 
Site (TEF) (DOE/EIS-0271). The December 1995 ROD also stated that, 
although it was rejected as a reasonable long-term supply alternative 
in the PEIS, DOE's Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) at the Hanford 
Reservation in Washington would be re-examined to determine whether it 
should play any tritium production role.
    On December 22, 1998, the Secretary of Energy announced his 
selection of the commercial light water reactor alternative as the 
primary tritium supply. This consolidated Record of Decision documents 
that decision and announces a series of three tiered decisions which, 
taken together, comprise the Department's plans for establishing a new 
domestic source of tritium to support the nuclear weapons stockpile. 
Each decision results from the preparation of a related environmental 
impact statement. In the order presented, this consolidated record of 
decision makes the following decisions based on their associated 
environmental impact statements (EIS):
    1. Supplemental Programmatic Decision for Tritium Supply and 
Recycling: Documents the Secretary of Energy announcement of December 
22, 1998; selects the purchase of irradiation services using commercial 
light water reactors as the primary tritium supply technology; and 
designates the accelerator system at the Savannah River Site as the 
backup technology. This ROD supplements the December 1995 ROD described 
above. Environmental analysis is contained in the Tritium Supply and 
Recycling PEIS (DOE/EIS-01621, October 1995).
    2. Site-specific Decision for the Production of Tritium in a 
Commercial Light Water Reactor. Selects the Tennessee Valley 
Authority's (TVA) Watts Bar Unit 1, Sequoyah Unit 1, and Sequoyah Unit 
2 reactors for use in irradiating tritium-producing burnable absorber 
rods (TPBARs). This decision is tiered from and implements the 
supplemental programmatic decision described above. Environmental 
analysis is contained in the Final EIS for the Production of Tritium in 
a Commercial Light Water Reactor (DOE/EIS-0288, March 1999). This EIS 
is tiered from the Tritium Supply and Recycling PEIS.
    3. Site-specific Decision for Construction and Operation of a 
Tritium Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site. Selects the 
alternative that would design, construct, test, and operate a new TEF 
in the H-Area immediately adjacent to and west of Building 233-H at the 
Savannah River Site. This facility is an essential element of the 
system for producing tritium using commercial reactors. This decision 
is tiered from and implements the supplemental programmatic decision 
described above. Environmental analysis is contained in the Final EIS 
for Construction and Operation of a TEF at the Savannah River Site 
(DOE/EIS-0271, March 1999) which is tiered from the Tritium Supply and 
Recycling PEIS.
    4. Site-specific Decision for the Accelerator Production of Tritium 
(APT). Selects the specific location at the Savannah River Site and the 
technologies to be used for the backup tritium supply technology, 
should its construction be required. This decision is tiered from and 
implements the supplemental programmatic decision described above. 
Environmental analysis is contained in the Final EIS for Accelerator 
Production of Tritium (DOE/EIS-0270, March 1999) which is tiered from 
the PEIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the 
commercial reactor program and the Tritium Extraction Facility, contact 
Stephen M. Sohinki, DP-62, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585, by phone (202-586-0838), or electronically (Tritium web site: 
www.dp.doe.gov and click on ``Tritium Project Office Home Page'') For 
further information on accelerator production of tritium, contact 
William P. Bishop, DP-61, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585, by phone (202-586-0046).
    For general information on the DOE National Environmental Policy 
Act process, please contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of 
NEPA Policy and Assistance, EH-42, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4600 or leave 
a message at (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    DOE has prepared this consolidated ROD pursuant to the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural 
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)(40

[[Page 26370]]

CFR 1500-1508) and the DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR part 1021). This 
ROD is based on the Tritium Supply and Recycling Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), and the three site-specific EISs 
identified above. Non-environmental considerations such as cost, 
technical maturity, and policy issues are also discussed in this ROD.
    The Department of Energy is responsible for supplying nuclear 
materials for national security needs and for ensuring that the nuclear 
weapons stockpile remains safe and reliable. Tritium, a radioactive 
isotope of hydrogen, is an essential component of every nuclear weapon 
in the current and projected U.S. stockpile. Unlike other materials 
used in nuclear weapons, tritium decays at a rate of 5.5 percent per 
year. Accordingly, as long as the Nation relies on nuclear weapons, 
tritium in each weapon must be replenished periodically. Currently, the 
U.S. nuclear weapons complex does not have the capability to produce 
tritium to support the Nation's stockpile.
    The President's Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan sets forth national 
security requirements for the current and projected nuclear weapons 
stockpile. At present, this plan is based on the Strategic Arms 
Reduction Treaty (START I) between the U.S. and former Soviet 
Republics. START I, which was signed in July 1991 and became effective 
in December 1994, reduces the number of strategic nuclear weapons in 
each side's stockpile. Under the Presidential guidance, new tritium 
would be needed by about fiscal year (FY) 2005 to offset the decay of 
tritium in the stockpile, in the required 5-year reserve, and in 
various operating inventories. Although the actual requirement is 
classified, the unclassified representation of the steady-state 
production rate to offset decay would be about 2.5 kilograms per year. 
If needed to replenish the tritium inventory, the new tritium source 
should be able to achieve a maximum production rate of around 3 
kilograms per year. The START II agreement, which further reduces 
nuclear stockpiles, was signed in July 1991, but has not been ratified 
by Russia and is, therefore, not in force. If Russia ratifies START II, 
the date when new tritium is needed may be as late as 2011 and the 
steady-state production rate may be as low as about 1.5 kilograms per 
year.
    The Department has not produced any new tritium since the shutdown 
of the last of its nuclear materials production reactors in 1988. Since 
that time the Department has examined various methods of producing new 
tritium. The Department announced on November 11, 1991, that analyses 
of tritium production alternatives would be incorporated into a 
programmatic environmental impact statement for the Reconfiguration of 
the Nuclear Weapons Complex. On October 28, 1994, the Department 
announced that a separate PEIS for Tritium Supply and Recycling would 
be prepared (59 FR 54175). On October 27, 1995, the Notice of 
Availability of the Final PEIS was published (60 FR 55020). Following 
publication of the Final PEIS, a Record of Decision was issued on 
December 5, 1995, which stated that the Department would pursue a dual 
track on the two most promising tritium supply alternatives: (1) to 
initiate the purchase of an existing commercial reactor (operating or 
partially complete) or irradiation services with an option to purchase 
the reactor for conversion to a defense facility; and (2) to design, 
build, and test critical components of an accelerator system. Within a 
three-year period, the Department would select one of the tracks to 
serve as the primary source of tritium. The other alternative, if 
feasible, would be developed as a backup tritium source. The ROD 
further stated that the Savannah River Site is selected as the location 
for an accelerator, should one be built. The ROD also stated that a 
tritium extraction facility will be constructed at the Savannah River 
Site if a commercial reactor alternative becomes the primary tritium 
source. Finally, the ROD stated that the existing tritium recycling 
facility at the Savannah River Site would be consolidated and upgraded.
    In the December 1995 ROD, the Department indicated that the FFTF, 
which had been rejected as a reasonable long-term production 
alternative, would be re-evaluated to determine whether it could 
reasonably play any role in meeting future tritium requirements. In 
January 1997, the reactor was placed in a stand-by status while 
additional evaluations were conducted. At the time, placing the reactor 
in a stand-by condition was thought to provide near-term insurance 
while the study of the two dual-track options continued.
    On December 22, 1998, the Department announced that commercial 
light water reactors would be used for the production of new tritium 
and the accelerator would be developed, but not constructed, as the 
backup technology. Selection of the commercial light water reactor 
confirms the prior plan to construct a new TEF, an element of the 
system to produce tritium using reactors. The use of existing 
commercial reactors was chosen as the preferred alternative. In 
addition, the Department decided that the FFTF would have no role in 
tritium supply plans because the Department has high confidence that 
the primary and back-up roles assigned to the commercial light water 
reactor and accelerator technologies, respectively, would assure that 
future tritium requirements are met.
    During the 30-day waiting period following publication of the three 
project-specific EISs in March 1999, DOE received four letters. One 
from the Department of Human Health and Services regarding the Final 
EIS for the Tritium Extraction Facility. That letter stated that the 
potential concerns of the Department of Human Health and Services were 
addressed in the Final EIS, and that there were no additional comments. 
The second letter was received from the Department of the Interior 
regarding the Final EIS for Accelerator Production of Tritium at the 
Savannah River Site and expressed a number of concerns relating to the 
biota. Since the APT has been designated as the backup, none of these 
impacts to biota are expected. However, if a decision is made to pursue 
the APT at a later date, these concerns would be addressed. The third 
and four letters, which were from the Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA) Region 4 Office in Atlanta, Georgia, concerned the APT and TEF 
EISs. The letters stated that DOE adequately responded to all EPA 
comments, but that EPA continues to have environmental concerns related 
to the wetlands, surface water, and groundwater impacts for the APT 
project, and the response to, and potential environmental impacts, 
associated with accidental releases for the TEF project. If a decision 
is made to pursue the APT, these concerns would be addressed. The 
concerns regarding the TEF project will be addressed in further detail 
during the design and permitting process. No other comments or letters 
were received.

II. Supplemental Programmatic Decision for Tritium Supply and 
Recycling

A. Tritium Supply and Recycling Alternatives

    The dual-track strategy established in the December 1995 
Programmatic Record of Decision defined the alternatives that would 
remain under consideration: (1) the purchase of an existing commercial 
reactor (operating or partially complete) or irradiation services with 
an option to purchase the reactor for conversion to a defense facility; 
and (2) design and construction of an accelerator system for tritium 
production. New construction of an

[[Page 26371]]

accelerator and/or a new tritium extraction facility would be located 
at DOE's Savannah River Site near Aiken, SC. No new tritium recycling 
capabilities or facilities are required or contemplated. This decision 
was based on the Final Tritium Supply and Recycling Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) (DOE/EIS--0161, October 1995).
    This supplemental programmatic ROD makes a choice between the two 
programmatic alternatives. It compares the alternatives with regard to 
their ability to meet military requirements in terms of technical 
maturity, capacity, and schedule risk; regulatory and licensing issues; 
cost; nonproliferation policy issues; flexibility to meet changing 
requirements, and environmental impacts.
    The commercial reactor alternative has narrowed somewhat since 
1995. DOE sought proposals from electrical utilities that operate 
commercial light water reactors (CLWR). No proposals were submitted to 
sell a reactor (operating or partially complete) to DOE. The Tennessee 
Valley Authority (TVA) offered to provide irradiation services using an 
incomplete reactor, for which DOE would provide funds to finish, plus 
use of its currently operating reactors as needed. TVA also offered the 
use of its currently operating reactors alone.
1. Description of Tritium Production Using Commercial Reactors
    This section describes the process of producing tritium in a CLWR. 
Current tritium requirements dictate that two CLWRs would be utilized 
at any given time. DOE-designed Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber 
Rods (TPBARs) would be placed in the reactors. DOE would have TPBARs 
manufactured commercially under contract. A maximum of approximately 
3400 TPBARs would be inserted in any one reactor for one fuel cycle. 
TPBARs perform the same functions as burnable absorber rods, which are 
used or have been used in commercial reactors to absorb excess neutrons 
to control local power levels and fuel burnup rates. Commercial 
burnable absorber rods absorb excess neutrons using the isotope Boron-
10 in ceramic form. TPBARs would also use a ceramic but substitute the 
isotope Lithium-6 for Boron-10. Lithium-6 changes to tritium when 
neutrons are absorbed. TPBARs would be placed in the reactors during 
normal refueling outages. The TPBARs would remain in the reactors 
throughout their normal operating cycle, usually a 15-18 month period. 
The irradiated TPBARs would be replaced in the reactors with new ones 
during refueling operations. Reactors potentially engaged in tritium 
production must have their operating licenses amended by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC). To meet current requirements, DOE plans 
for the first irradiation cycle to begin in early FY 2004.
    After irradiation, TPBARs would be transported in approved shipping 
casks to a new TEF which would be constructed at DOE's Savannah River 
Site and ready for operation no later than February 2006. The tritium 
in each TPBAR is not gaseous, but is held in a solid matrix by several 
internal structures. These structures are so effective in retaining the 
tritium that a high-temperature furnace must be used to remove the 
tritium as a gas. The TEF would use remotely operated handling 
equipment and the furnaces that would heat the irradiated TPBARs to 
around 1,000 degrees Celsius. The gases removed from the TPBARs would 
be partially purified and pumped to the existing Tritium Recycle 
Facility at the Savannah River Site for further processing and delivery 
to the nuclear weapons stockpile. Following extraction, TPBARs, 
classified as low-level radioactive waste, would then be sent to a low-
level radioactive waste disposal facility at the Savannah River Site.
2. Description of Accelerator Production of Tritium
    The production of tritium in the proposed Accelerator Production of 
Tritium facility may be viewed as a four-step process. First, protons 
are accelerated to high energies. Second the protons strike tungsten to 
produce neutrons through a nuclear process called spallation. Tritium 
is produced in the third step, when the neutrons are captured by a 
helium-3 feedstock (He-3) causing a nuclear reaction which produces 
tritium and other isotopes of hydrogen. The final step is to separate 
the tritium from the feedstock and purify it for use in the stockpile.
    The APT would use radiofrequency waves to accelerate protons 
(positively charged atomic particles). Electrical power would be 
converted to radiofrequency waves outside the accelerator beam, and 
waveguides (hollow metal conduits) would transmit the waves to cells 
along the beam path. The accelerator design would enable the proton 
beam to intersect with the radiofrequency waves in the proper 
orientation to cause the protons to accelerate; in other words, the 
radiofrequecy waves would push the protons down the beam tube faster 
and faster.
    Once the protons reached the desired energy, they would be directed 
toward a target/blanket assembly of tungsten surrounded by lead. The 
high energy of the protons striking the tungsten target would cause the 
nuclei of the tungsten atoms to break into fragments, ejecting neutrons 
and secondary particles in all directions (spallation). These neutrons 
and some protons would be scattered to surrounding lead blanket modules 
where more neutrons would be produced through additional nuclear 
reactions. The neutrons freed during spallation would strike and be 
absorbed by the feedstock material (i.e., He-30) in the target/blanket. 
This absorption of neutrons would result in the production of tritium 
and byproduct atoms. The tritium would then be separated from the 
feedstock and purified. The purified tritium would be transported to 
the Tritium Loading Facility at the Savannah River Site where it would 
be used to refill tritium reservoirs in nuclear weapons.

B. Comparison of Non-Environmental Impacts of Tritium Supply 
Alternatives

    DOE is responsible to the President and its primary customer, the 
Department of Defense, for establishing an assured source of tritium on 
a schedule that meets the requirements discussed in the background 
section above. Several factors, not directly related to environmental 
impacts, are important in assessing the probability that each tritium 
supply alternative will meet that responsibility. The factors discussed 
below are: ability to meet military requirements; regulatory and 
licensing issues; cost; nonproliferation issues; and flexibility to 
meet changing requirements.
1. Ability To Meet Military Requirements
    To meet military requirements, a tritium source must have low 
technical risk, must have the capacity to produce tritium at required 
rates, and must meet schedule deadlines. The tritium supply options are 
assessed in these terms below:

Technology Maturity/Risk

    Since its inception, the APT Project has sought to develop and 
demonstrate critical components of a tritium production system and to 
reach a level of maturity in the design of a full-scale production 
system so that its technical risks, costs, and schedule can be fully 
understood. At this point a majority of the accelerator system's 
preliminary design has been completed and a low-energy demonstration 
accelerator at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New

[[Page 26372]]

Mexico has undergone construction and successful operational testing. 
Several external reviews have revealed no technical ``showstoppers.'' 
However, accelerators have never made tritium on a continuous 
production scale, and the APT would be a first-of-a-kind facility.
    Tritium production in reactors has been demonstrated to be safe and 
technically straightforward. Although there are variations in the 
technical details, in the past the only method used to produce tritium 
has been with reactors and tritium-producing ``targets'' containing 
lithium. DOE began considering commercial reactor target designs for 
tritium production in the 1960s. The TPBAR to be used in commercial 
reactors was designed and extensive development and testing done during 
DOE's previous New Production Reactor Program (1988-1992). Commercial 
nuclear power is supported by a well developed, mature industrial 
infrastructure. During that program, rods of essentially the same 
design as those to be used in commercial reactors were irradiated in 
DOE's Advanced Test Reactor at the Idaho National Environmental and 
Engineering Laboratory. Post-irradiation non-destructive and 
destructive examinations have shown that the rods performed even better 
than predicted. Various laboratory tests have consistently shown TPBAR 
component performance to be as good or better than expectations.
    Following two extensive technical reviews by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) and the approval of an amendment for its operating 
license issued in September 1997, the Tennessee Valley Authority's 
(TVA) Watts Bar reactor irradiated 32 TPBARs over a normal operating 
cycle for a confirmatory demonstration. Frequent monitoring of the 
reactor coolant and neutron flux indicated no problems with the rods. 
Following irradiation, the rods were removed from the reactor's spent 
fuel on March 19, 1999, and visually inspected. The inspection of the 
32 TPBARs showed no indications of any kind of problem. In February 
1999, DOE submitted the Tritium Production Core Topical Report to the 
NRC. NRC's review of the report has raised no significant concerns and 
a Safety Evaluation Report to this effect is now being finalized by the 
NRC.
    Conclusion: While much progress has been made in addressing the 
technical issues that existed regarding the APT at the time of the 1995 
Record of Decision, tritium production technology for light water 
reactors is more technically mature, and carries with it less technical 
risk than the APT.

Capacity

    The commercial reactor alternative and the APT alternative would 
both have a maximum production capacity of about 3 kilograms of tritium 
per year. Commercial reactors routinely operate at full power for 
extended periods of time. The national average capacity factor for 
commercial reactors is in excess of 75 percent, including all refueling 
shutdown periods. The Watts Bar reactor, while irradiating 32 of DOE's 
TPBARs, recently shut down for refueling, having been in continuous 
high-power operation for 353 consecutive days. The availability of 
multiple candidate reactors for irradiating TPBARs also provides high 
confidence that tritium production capacity requirements can be met. 
Although much progress has been made, the APT project has not yet 
demonstrated its tritium production capacity.
    Conclusion: Although either alternative should be able to meet 
capacity requirements, the availability of multiple commercial reactors 
and their demonstrated capacity factors provides a greater degree of 
confidence that production goals can be met consistently.

Schedule

    The commercial reactor alternative could begin producing its first 
batch of tritium in October 2003 when one of the candidate reactors is 
scheduled to complete a refueling outage. Because many technical and 
regulatory issues have been addressed already, there is a high degree 
of confidence that this initial irradiation schedule can be met. The 
first batch could be delivered to the stockpile as tritium gas as soon 
as the TEF is operational. Selection of the incomplete reactor approach 
would not impact the schedule because an existing reactor would be used 
to irradiate the initial batch of TPBARs. Under both reactor 
alternatives, current START I requirements would be met without the use 
of the 5-year tritium reserve. The APT alternative would be operational 
around 2008 and would begin continuous tritium production at that time. 
This would require that 3 years of the 5-year reserve be utilized for 
stockpile support. The APT would need to operate at its maximum 
capacity for a number of years to replace the depleted reserve.
    Conclusion: There is a high likelihood that, with adequate funding, 
the reactor alternatives can meet the schedule and the tritium reserve 
would not be impacted. The APT would require that at least 3 years of 
the reserve be consumed and that the machine operate at maximum 
capacity until the reserve has been restored. Any schedule delay beyond 
2008 would potentially utilize the balance of the reserve and thus 
potentially impact the stockpile. If START II is ratified and 
implemented, any schedule risk would be eliminated. However, for 
current stockpile requirements, the commercial reactor alternative has 
the best chance for meeting schedule requirements.
2. Regulatory and Licensing Issues
    Both the reactor and accelerator alternatives would be overseen by 
bodies external to DOE. The potential for oversight/regulatory issues 
to impact the tritium alternatives is discussed below.
    The NRC would have to amend the operating licenses of existing 
commercial reactors to permit production-scale irradiation of tritium-
producing rods. Requests for license amendments would be submitted in 
the middle of calendar year 2000. It is expected that the NRC would be 
in a position to act upon the amendment requests well in advance of the 
planned October 2003 start of irradiation. Some experience has already 
been gained in this area because the Watts Bar reactor's operating 
license was amended in September 1997 to permit the confirmatory test 
irradiation of 32 TPBARs. That licensing process was completed in a few 
months. The NRC has completed two reviews of technical reports on the 
TPBAR submitted by DOE and a third review of a reactor-specific request 
to amend the Watts Bar reactor's operating license for the confirmatory 
irradiation demonstration. No significant safety issues were 
identified.
    If a partially complete reactor were finished and brought on line, 
the facility would have to be licensed as a new nuclear power plant. 
The licensing process is likely to take up to 5 years. As discussed 
above, this would not impact national security because initial tritium 
production would begin with an existing reactor. However, delays in 
getting the incomplete plant into operation could delay and possibly 
reduce DOE's receipt of revenues from the plant's power sales. Thus, 
the only potential regulatory impact would be financial in nature.
    The APT design, construction, and operation would be overseen by 
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB). To date, the DNFSB 
has not identified any issues that would affect the availability of 
this facility. The APT would not require a license for its construction 
or operation.

[[Page 26373]]

    Conclusion: The APT option appears to have no regulatory and 
licensing issues. The existing-reactor sub-option is not likely to be 
impacted by regulatory and licensing issues. The incomplete reactor 
sub-option has potential for these issues to impact its schedule, but 
is not likely to affect tritium production because initial irradiation 
would be with an existing reactor.
3. Cost
    Cost is determined in terms of investment cost and life-cycle cost. 
Investment cost is defined as the total of all remaining up-front costs 
necessary to design, develop, construct, startup, or otherwise 
establish tritium production capacity. Investment costs are generally 
the same as project costs. Life-cycle cost is defined as the total 
amount of money spent to produce 100 kilograms of tritium over the life 
of the alternative to meet current START I requirements. Life-cycle 
cost includes investment cost, all operating costs, and decontamination 
and decommissioning (D&D) costs. All cost discussions refer to constant 
FY 1999 dollars.
    The investment cost remaining (FY 1999-2008) to develop, design, 
construct, and startup the APT facility, sized to meet START I tritium 
requirements, would be $3.4 billion. The investment cost remaining to 
establish capabilities to produce tritium through irradiation services 
with existing commercial reactors and to design, construct, and startup 
the TEF would be $580 million. This investment cost would increase by 
$1.2-1.8 billion if finishing an incomplete reactor is included.
    The annual operating cost of the APT would be $135 million when 
meeting START I tritium requirements. The annual operating cost to 
produce START I quantities of tritium using existing reactors would be 
$20-60 million. At the high end of this range DOE would pay for the 
incremental increase in the enrichment of the host reactors' fuel as 
needed to accommodate TPBARs for tritium production. At the low end of 
the range DOE would provide blended-down highly enriched uranium from 
its national security stocks, and the host utility would reimburse DOE 
for that portion not directly attributable to tritium production. If 
DOE provides funds to finish an incomplete reactor, under some 
scenarios, the Government would share in the power sales revenue of 
that reactor. These revenues would depend on the amount of investment 
money provided and whether the funds were provided over a short period 
or an extended period. Large ``block'' investment payments would result 
in the highest revenue share. Reduced, extended payments would provide 
no revenue share. Depending on the investment, the annual operating 
cost to DOE would range from around $30 million of net income to around 
$25 million of net outlay.
    D&D costs for the APT would be $260 million. For the reactor 
alternative, DOE would be liable only for D&D of the TEF at $8 million. 
DOE would have no liability for reactor D&D costs.
    The APT and TEF would be designed for a 40-year life. Although the 
NRC licenses of currently operating reactors would expire before then, 
extension of the reactors' operating licenses is possible, either to 
meet power demand or tritium requirements or both. For purposes of this 
cost analysis, it is assumed that suitable reactors will be available 
throughout the 40-year period.. Thus, all alternatives were compared on 
the same life-span basis. Life-cycle cost for the APT is estimated to 
be $9.2 billion. Life-cycle cost for the use of commercial reactors is 
estimated to be $1.2 billion to $2.9 billion, depending on the 
investment-revenue combination discussed above.
    The present discount value of the APT alternative, using a 3.6 
percent discount rate, would be $5.2 billion. The present discount 
value of the commercial reactor alternative would range from $880 
million to $2.0 billion, depending on the investment and fuel 
enrichment strategies, as discussed above.
    Conclusion: Under current requirements, the commercial reactor 
alternative would cost significantly less than the APT alternative in 
terms of investment costs, operating costs, D&D costs, life-cycle 
costs, and present discount value.

Cost To Meet Reduced START II Requirements

    If START II comes into force, the tritium need date could be around 
2011 and the maximum tritium production rate may be reduced to about 
1.5 kilograms per year. If so, a smaller accelerator could be 
constructed, reducing its investment cost to $2.8 billion. The existing 
commercial reactor alternative's investment cost remains about the same 
as the START I case. The accelerator alternative's life-cycle cost 
under this reduced-requirement scenario would be $7.5 billion. Life-
cycle cost for the commercial reactor alternative, using existing 
reactors would be $2.2 billion or less, depending on the fuel 
enrichment strategy. Adding completion of an unfinished reactor could 
drive the life-cycle costs up or down, depending on the investment 
strategy.
    Conclusion: Under START II requirements, the commercial reactor 
alternative would cost significantly less than the APT alternative in 
terms of investment cost, operating costs, D&D costs, and life-cycle 
costs.
4. Nonproliferation Issues
    Concerns have been expressed by members of Congress and other 
individuals and groups regarding the use of a civilian reactor to 
assist a defense mission. As a result of these concerns, the Congress 
requested the Department to facilitate a high-level interagency review 
of the nonproliferation implications of the various tritium production 
technologies. Participants in the review included the National Security 
Council, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency, the White House Office of Science and 
Technology Policy, the Office of the Vice President, and the NRC. The 
report, Interagency Review of the Nonproliferation Implications of 
Alternative Tritium Production Technologies Under Consideration by the 
Department of Energy, was provided to the Congress in July 1998. A 
summary of conclusions of the report follows:
    The interagency report noted that tritium is not a fissionable 
material, and thus there is no legal prohibition on the production of 
tritium in a commercial reactor to support the stockpile. The report 
concluded that ``the nonproliferation policy issues associated with the 
use of a commercial light water reactor are manageable, and that the 
Department should continue to pursue the reactor option as a viable 
source for future tritium production.'' This conclusion was based on a 
number of factors, including the following:
     Use of commercial reactors for tritium production is not 
prohibited by statute or international treaty;
     There have been several exceptions over the past several 
decades to the practice of distinguishing between the civilian and 
military uses of nuclear power.
     Commercial reactors engaged in tritium production would 
remain eligible for the application of International Atomic Energy 
Agency safeguards.
     The commercial reactor option would be operated in 
compliance with international agreements imposing restrictions on use 
of transferred materials for peaceful purposes only, e.g., no reactor 
fuel or component

[[Page 26374]]

transferred under these agreements would be used by any reactor making 
tritium; and
     Further mitigation is offered if the existing reactors are 
operated by TVA. TVA's statutory charter assigns it a national security 
mission. TVA's reactors are already government facilities. TVA has made 
contributions to national security in the past including production of 
munitions and providing power for the enrichment of uranium for 
civilian and military purposes. It would, therefore, be entirely 
appropriate for TVA to be assigned the tritium production mission.
    The interagency review concluded that the accelerator option would 
raise no significant nonproliferation policy issues, assuming that 
export control measures are maintained. Subsequent to the issuance of 
the report, concerns have been expressed, applicable to both the APT 
and to the completion of an unfinished reactor, that the commitment to 
a major new weapons facility would be inconsistent, either in fact or 
in appearance, with our commitment to further stockpile reductions and 
thus to our obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 
These concerns were considered in the tritium technology decision 
process.
    Conclusion: Although concerns have been expressed about each of the 
tritium production alternatives, nonproliferation policy issues would 
not preclude the selection of any alternative.
5. Flexibility To Meet Changing Requirements
    Since tritium production stopped in 1988, the U.S. tritium 
requirements have been reduced by almost 75 percent, primarily because 
of the stockpile reductions resulting from bilateral arms control 
agreements. The current tritium production requirement is based on 
supporting a stockpile sized for START I. If START II is ratified by 
the Russian Duma (legislature), the U.S. may decide to reduce its 
tritium production requirements, thus moving the need date to 2011 and 
reducing tritium production requirements. Stockpile reductions beyond 
START II are possible and would hopefully occur, potentially resulting 
in further extension of the tritium need date and reductions in tritium 
production requirements.
    The APT has significant flexibility to change its rate of tritium 
production and therefore its operating costs. It is less flexible in 
its avoidance of capital investment costs. The APT project plan calls 
for construction of a ``modular'' accelerator sized to produce about 
1.5 kilograms per year, the capacity sufficient for a START II 
stockpile. According to the plan, if current tritium requirements are 
not reduced by early FY 2000, accelerator construction would proceed 
with a full-size machine having a capacity of 3 kilograms per year with 
a $500 million increase in investment cost. If tritium requirements are 
reduced after early FY 2000 much of the investment cost of the APT 
would be ``sunk.''
    The use of the existing, operating reactors is the most flexible 
option with respect to changing stockpile levels. If the tritium need 
date is extended during FY 1999-2000, most investment for this 
alternative could be suspended indefinitely and then restarted later. A 
substantial portion of DOE's operating costs would be based on tritium 
demand on a pay-as-you-go basis. Except for minimal standby costs, DOE 
would pay for irradiation services, TPBAR manufacturing, and 
transportation operations only during those years when tritium is 
actually required. The amount spent for irradiation services would, to 
a great degree, depend on the amount of tritium produced. If the 
tritium need date is extended before the TEF handles its first 
increment of radioactive material, that facility could remain in 
standby indefinitely for less than $1 million per year.
    If completion of an unfinished reactor is considered, the reactor 
alternative's flexibility characteristics become much like those of the 
APT. While there is great flexibility in amounts of tritium that can be 
produced, the large up-front investment cost would have no relation to 
tritium requirements. Once DOE committed itself to completion of the 
reactor, there would be no opportunity to reduce investment costs if 
stockpile tritium requirements were reduced. Revenues would be returned 
to DOE whether tritium is needed or not, but the cost per kilogram 
would obviously be higher if tritium requirements were substantially 
reduced as a result of further arms reduction agreements. The annual 
net operating cost (positive or negative) of this alternative would 
vary somewhat with tritium demand because of reductions in the cost for 
TPBAR manufacturing and transportation, thus reducing the total-life 
cycle cost.
    Conclusion: The use of existing reactors potentially results in the 
greatest degree of flexibility to meet changing requirements, 
especially in view of the potential for future reductions in the 
nuclear weapons stockpile.

C. Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Tritium Supply Alternatives

    Since the December 1995 Tritium Supply and Recycling PEIS ROD, a 
substantial amount of work has been accomplished on both the CLWR 
tritium production alternative and the APT alternative, including the 
issuance of project-specific Environmental Impact Statements. In the 
course of preparing this supplement to the December 1995 ROD for the 
tritium supply technology decision, in order to select between the two 
technologies, DOE reviewed the Tritium Supply and Recycling Final PEIS 
to ensure that the information contained there is still valid. The 
conclusion of that review is that the Tritium Supply and Recycling PEIS 
remains a valid basis for the programmatic portion of this consolidated 
ROD.
    In the December 5, 1995 ROD for the Tritium Supply and Recycling 
PEIS, environmental impacts of the various tritium supply technologies 
were compared and a general conclusion was reached that ``[for all of 
the reasonable tritium supply technology alternatives] the 
environmental impacts are generally small and, except for the 
commercial reactor options to purchase an existing reactor or 
irradiation services, the impacts are within the same range. The 
Department considers the commercial reactor options of purchasing an 
existing reactor or irradiation services to be the environmentally 
preferred alternative.'' [60 FR 63889] As discussed below, these 
conclusions remain true.
    Described below are the relative differences in environmental 
impacts between tritium production in operating CLWRs (TVA's Watts Bar 
Unit 1 and Sequoyah Units 1 and 2 are used in the analysis) and an 
incomplete CLWR (TVA's Bellefonte Unit 1 is used in the analysis), and 
construction and operation of the APT at the Savannah River Site. For 
an incomplete CLWR, the environmental analysis attributes all of the 
impacts from completing construction and operating the plant to the 
tritium production mission. Additionally, because any tritium produced 
by a CLWR would need to be extracted from TPBARs prior to delivery to 
the nuclear weapons stockpile, the impacts associated with operation of 
a TEF are included in the discussion below, as appropriate. DOE has 
decided previously that a TEF capability would be constructed 
regardless of whether the CLWR option is selected as the primary or the 
backup tritium supply [60 FR 63890]. In the latter case the TEF would 
be needed as part of a viable backup system and could have been

[[Page 26375]]

incorporated as part of the APT facility. Therefore, construction 
impacts of TEF apply if either the CLWR or APT option is chosen, but 
TEF operating impacts apply only to the CLWR. Because of the 
availability of data in the tiered, final EISs for use of commercial 
reactors for tritium production, the TEF, and the APT, the discussion 
below is based upon the best available information and analyses that 
have been developed to date.
1. Construction Impacts
    For tritium production in a CLWR, construction impacts would range 
from none (for operating CLWRs) to minor (for a CLWR which is currently 
approximately 90 percent complete, and would only require internal 
modifications). The predominant construction impact associated with an 
incomplete CLWR would be on socioeconomics, as approximately 4,500 
direct jobs and 4,500 indirect jobs could be created during the peak 
year of construction. The creation of approximately 9,000 total jobs 
would have a significant positive impact on the economic area 
surrounding the incomplete reactor. For the APT at the Savannah River 
Site, construction impacts would consist of: land disturbance of 
approximately 250 acres; water use of less than 1 percent of current 
use; and socioeconomic impacts associated with a peak-year construction 
workforce of approximately 1,400 direct jobs and approximately 900 
indirect jobs. The creation of approximately 2,300 total jobs would 
have a significant positive impact on the economic area surrounding the 
Savannah River Site. Construction impacts associated with a TEF at SRS 
would be minimal. Land disturbance would occur in a densely developed 
industrial area. Water use would be less than 1 percent of current site 
use. Socioeconomic impacts associated with a peak-year workforce would 
be about 740 direct jobs which would have a positive stabilizing 
influence on SRS employment but an insignificant impact on regional 
employment.
    Conclusion: With respect to construction impacts associated with 
tritium production, use of an existing CLWR would have the least impact 
on the natural environment. Completion of an unfinished reactor would 
have positive socioeconomic impacts, as would the APT at SRS. Using an 
existing CLWR would have no socioeconomic impacts. For all 
alternatives, the environmental impacts associated with construction 
are considered small.
2. Operating Impacts
    For an operating CLWR, there would either be no impacts, or 
negligible impacts, to resources such as: land, infrastructure, noise, 
visual, air quality, water resources (use and quality), geology and 
soils, archeological and historic, and socioeconomics. Tritium 
production and extraction could cause additional impacts in the 
following resources: spent fuel generation; human health (normal 
operations and accidents); low-level radioactive waste (LLW) 
generation; and transportation.
    For the alternative that would complete, start up, and operate an 
incomplete reactor, the operating impacts include those impacts 
associated with a new commercial nuclear power plant. The following 
resources would be affected: infrastructure (including visual 
resources); water resources; spent fuel generation; human health 
(normal operations and accidents); LLW generation; transportation; and 
socioeconomics.
    Operation of a TEF at the Savannah River Site would affect the 
following resources: infrastructure; water resources; human health 
(normal operations and accidents); LLW generation; and socioeconomics.
    For the APT, tritium production could cause impacts in the 
following resources: infrastructure; surface water; human health 
(normal operations and accidents); LLW generation; and socioeconomics. 
For the resources potentially affected during operation of any tritium 
supply technology, the most significant discriminators between 
alternatives are: infrastructure, spent fuel, human health (including 
impacts from accidents), low-level waste generation, and 
socioeconomics. These resources are discussed below for the tritium 
production alternatives, as appropriate.

Infrastructure

    The production of tritium in an operating CLWR would have no impact 
on the local infrastructure. The impacts of operating a newly completed 
reactor would produce more than 1,200 megawatts of usable electric 
power. In an area such as the Tennessee Valley, this beneficial impact 
would tend to reduce the need for operation of coal-fired or gas-fired 
power plants, or could offset the need for additional power plants in 
the future, potentially reducing future air emissions. Although visual 
resources surrounding the incomplete reactor site would be negatively 
impacted by a cooling tower plume, this would not be significant enough 
to change the plant's existing visual resource classification. For the 
operation of the TEF, estimates for base load electricity use are 
approximately 2.4 megawatts of electric power, which would be provided 
through the existing infrastructure at SRS.
    For the APT, estimates for base load electricity use are up to 350 
megawatts of electric power. Environmental impacts associated with 
production of electricity by a coal-fired or gas-fired power plant 
would consist mainly of increased air emissions; however, no air 
quality standards are expected to be exceeded. The visual impacts of 
the APT are not deemed significant because the facility would not be 
visible from the Savannah River Site boundaries to ground-level 
observers.
    Conclusion: Operation of a newly completed reactor would produce a 
positive impact on the local infrastructure by producing more than 
1,200 megawatts of electric power. An operating CLWR used for tritium 
production would have no additional impact on the local infrastructure. 
The TEF would have a negligible impact on the local infrastructure at 
the Savannah River Site. The APT would have a minor negative 
environmental impact on the local infrastructure by requiring 
approximately 350 megawatts of electric power.

Spent Fuel

    The reactors considered here each use 193 fuel assemblies when 
operating. At each refueling a percentage of these assemblies are 
removed from the reactor and placed in the reactor's spent fuel storage 
pool. The number of assemblies of spent fuel generated by an existing 
reactor could increase as a result of tritium production. Increases 
could range from approximately 60 spent fuel assemblies per cycle if a 
CLWR is loaded with a maximum of 3,400 TPBARs, to no increase in spent 
fuel if a CLWR is loaded with less than approximately 2,000 TPBARs. The 
environmental impacts associated with long-term, on-site, dry-cask 
storage of spent fuel are not significant. For a newly completed CLWR, 
approximately 72 spent fuel assemblies would be generated during 
reactor operations without tritium production. For nominal tritium 
production, the amount of spent fuel generated would not increase as 
long as less than approximately 2,000 TPBARs are loaded into the 
reactor. If maximum tritium production is needed, up to 3,400 TPBARs 
would be used and approximately 69 additional spent fuel assemblies 
would be generated per cycle. In this regard, it is DOE's

[[Page 26376]]

intention to minimize, if not eliminate, the generation of additional 
spent fuel by limiting the number of TPBARs inserted in a single 
reactor. Neither the TEF, nor the APT, would generate spent fuel.
    Conclusion: Operation of a newly completed reactor would generate 
the most additional spent fuel. Use of currently operating reactors 
could lead to a limited incremental increase in spent fuel. The APT 
would generate no spent fuel.

Human Health (Normal Operations)

    By adding tritium production to the currently operating reactors, 
there would be additional radiation doses to workers and the public 
from tritium production. The incremental increase in annual average 
worker dose is estimated at approximately 1.1 millirem, while the total 
population dose within 50 miles is estimated to increase by 
approximately 2.0 person-rem per year during normal operations. In 
terms of potential impacts, these values are not significant. For 
example, a 2.0 person-rem dose translates into a latent cancer fatality 
risk of 1 in 1,000 years. For the average worker, a 1.1 millirem annual 
dose translates to a risk to that worker of a latent cancer fatality 
every 2.3 million years.
    By finishing the incomplete reactor and operating it to produce 
electricity and tritium, there would be radiation doses to workers and 
the public that do not currently occur. The average annual worker dose 
is estimated at a maximum of approximately 105 millirem, of which 104 
millirem would result from operation of the reactor to produce 
electricity, and 1.1 millirem would be from tritium operations. The 
annual total population dose within 50 miles is estimated to be a 
maximum of approximately 2.3 person-rem. In terms of potential impacts, 
these values are not significant. For example, a 2.3 person-rem dose 
translates into a latent cancer fatality risk of 1 in 870 years. A 105 
millirem annual dose translates to a risk to an average worker of a 
latent cancer fatality every 23,000 years.
    Operation of the TEF at the Savannah River Site would result in 
small radiological impacts to workers and the public from tritium 
production. The average annual worker dose is estimated at 
approximately 40 millirem, while the total population dose within 50 
miles is estimated to increase by approximately 0.77 person-rem per 
year. In terms of potential impacts, these values are not significant. 
For example, a 0.77 person-rem dose translates into a latent cancer 
fatality risk of 1 in 2600 years. For the average exposed worker, a 40 
millirem annual dose translates to a risk to that worker of a latent 
cancer fatality every 62,500 years.
    Operation of the APT would result in small radiological impacts to 
workers and the public from tritium production. The average annual 
worker dose is estimated at a maximum of approximately 144 millirem, 
while the total population dose within 50 miles is estimated to be 
approximately 2.0 person-rem. In terms of potential impacts, these 
values are not significant. For example, a 2.0 person-rem dose 
translates into a latent cancer fatality of 1 in approximately 1,000 
years. A 144 millirem annual dose translates to a risk to an average 
worker of a latent cancer fatality approximately every 17,600 years.
    Conclusion: Radiological impacts for normal operations are 
considered small for all alternatives. The APT and commercial reactor 
options would have comparable impacts to the population. Use of an 
operating CLWR would have the smallest impact to workers.

Human Health (Accidents)

    Based upon tests and analyses that had been performed previously as 
part of the DOE's New Production Reactor program, the Tritium Supply 
and Recycling PEIS concluded that ``it appears that no new significant 
safety hazard is introduced as a result of a decision to produce 
tritium in an existing CLWR.'' [PEIS, page 4-524] Nonetheless, the PEIS 
also acknowledged that a complete reactor-specific evaluation remained 
to be completed. The CLWR EIS provides a detailed evaluation of impacts 
from accidents on a site-specific basis for the CLWR reactor 
alternatives. Based upon the CLWR EIS evaluation, the conclusion in the 
PEIS is further supported. The CLWR EIS documents that the potential 
impacts from tritium production on accident impacts is small. For 
design-basis accidents at operating reactors, the risk of a latent 
cancer fatality to an average individual from tritium production in the 
50-mile population surrounding a CLWR would be approximately 1 in 490 
million years. At the incomplete reactor site, this risk would be 
approximately 1 in 1.3 billion years. For beyond design-basis 
accidents, tritium production would result in very small changes in the 
consequences of an accident. This is due to the fact that the potential 
consequences of such an accident would be dominated by radionuclides 
other than tritium. At the operating reactors, the additional risks to 
the 50-mile population from adding tritium production would be less 
than one additional cancer per every 100,000 years from a beyond 
design-basis accident. At the incomplete reactor site, the total risk 
of the new reactor and the added tritium mission to the 50-mile 
population would be approximately 11 latent cancer fatalities per 
100,000 years from a beyond design-basis accident.
    The potential impacts to the public from accidents associated with 
operation of the TEF at the Savannah River Site are extremely small. 
For the design-basis accident, the risks to the 50-mile population 
would be approximately 7 latent cancer fatalities per 100,000 years.
    The potential impacts to the public from either a design-basis or 
beyond design-basis accident from the APT are small. For a design-basis 
accident, the risk of a latent cancer fatality to an average individual 
in the 50-mile population would be approximately 1 in 470 million 
years. For beyond design-basis accidents, the risks to the 50-mile 
population would be approximately 3 latent cancer fatalities per 
100,000 years.
    Conclusion: The risks associated with accidents are small for all 
the tritium production alternatives. Differences between the CLWR and 
APT are not deemed to be significant.

Low-Level Radioactive Wastes

    LLW generation at the operating reactors could increase by 0.43 
cubic meters annually as a result of tritium production. The impact of 
disposing of the additional LLW at the Barnwell commercial disposal 
facility at Barnwell, South Carolina would represent much less than 1 
percent of the total LLW that is currently disposed of at that 
facility. The newly completed reactor would generate approximately 40 
cubic meters of LLW annually, which would also be less than 1 percent 
of the total LLW that is disposed of annually at the Barnwell LLW 
commercial disposal facility. Operation of the TEF would generate 
approximately 232 cubic meters of LLW annually. These wastes would be 
manageable using existing waste management treatment, storage, and 
disposal facilities at the Savannah River Site.
    The APT would generate approximately 1,400 cubic meters of LLW 
annually. These wastes would be manageable using existing waste 
management treatment, storage, and disposal facilities at the Savannah 
River Site. The environmental impacts of all waste types for all 
alternatives, including LLW, would be small and manageable with 
existing facilities.
    Conclusion: Although all of the waste generation impacts are 
acceptable, the

[[Page 26377]]

use of currently operating reactors would generate the smallest amount 
of low-level wastes from tritium production. For all alternatives, the 
environmental impacts of all waste types, including low-level waste 
would be small and manageable with existing facilities.

Socioeconomics

    Little or no socioeconomic impact is expected by adding the tritium 
production mission at an operating CLWR. Operation of a newly completed 
CLWR would add approximately 800 direct and 800 indirect jobs. The 
socioeconomic impacts of the 1,600 total jobs would have a positive 
impact on the economic area surrounding the reactor site. Operation of 
the TEF would add approximately 108 direct jobs. This would not have 
any significant impact on the local socioeconomic area. Operation of 
the APT would add approximately 500 direct jobs and 335 indirect jobs. 
The socioeconomic impacts of the 885 total jobs would have a positive 
impact on the economic area surrounding SRS.
    Conclusion: Operation of a newly completed reactor and the APT 
would have the greatest positive socioeconomic impacts, while use of 
currently operating CLWRs to produce tritium would involve 
insignificant socioeconomic impacts.

Transportation

    There will be impacts associated with transporting irradiated 
TPBARs from the reactor sites to the TEF at the Savannah River Site. 
There would be approximately 13 shipments of TPBARs annually to SRS 
which would result in an annual human health risk, over the entire 
route of the shipments, of less than 1 latent cancer fatality every 
100,000 years. The impact on any one individual would be less than 
that. Because the Tritium Loading Facility and the APT would be located 
at SRS, there are no impacts directly associated with transportation.
    Conclusion: Although all the transportation impacts are negligible, 
the APT has the least impact.
3. Overall Environmental Conclusion
    As described above, and as documented in the environmental analyses 
that have been developed, it is expected that the overall environmental 
impacts associated with tritium production in either a CLWR or the APT 
would be small. Consequently, the environmental impacts associated with 
the two alternatives are not considered a major discriminating factor 
in this tritium technology decision. The December 1995 Programmatic ROD 
stated that the use of existing CLWRs for tritium production would be 
the environmentally preferred alternative. Subsequent analyses, 
discussed here, confirm this still to be true.

D. Programmatic Decision

    Both technology alternatives are feasible. Consistent with the 
Department's December 22, 1998, announcement, and based on the above 
analysis, DOE selects the use of existing commercial light water 
reactors as the primary technology to produce tritium for national 
security purposes. In implementing this decision, DOE will construct a 
new Tritium Extraction Facility on the Savannah River Site.
    The use of commercial light water reactors is selected to be the 
primary tritium supply technology because analysis leads to the 
conclusion that this technology:
     Would have the best chance of meeting all military 
requirements due to:
     Lowest technical risk.
     Lowest schedule risk.
     Highest confidence for meeting capacity requirements.
     Would have the lowest investment and life-cycle costs.
     Offers potential to be the most flexible in meeting 
changing requirement.
     Offers potential to have the least environmental impact.
    The Accelerator Production of Tritium (APT) is designated as the 
backup tritium production technology. The APT Project will complete 
Engineering Development and Demonstration (ED&D) activities and final 
design for a few key elements of the accelerator system. Completion of 
these activities would permit expedient initiation of facility 
construction if the accelerator is called upon.
    In January 1997, the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) was placed in a 
safe standby condition as near-term ``insurance'' given the 
uncertainties at that time with the dual-track technologies for tritium 
production. Because it could not produce enough tritium to meet 
production requirements, it could not serve as a potential primary 
long-term tritium supply source. The Department's evaluation of FFTF 
has focused on whether it can or should play any role as an interim 
source of tritium until one of the other technologies is implemented. 
The Department is fully confident that the tritium supply strategy 
embodied in this decision can meet any current or future tritium 
requirements. Consequently, the Department's FFTF will have no tritium 
production role. A separate study is being conducted to determine if 
that reactor should be restarted and operated for other purposes.

III. Site-specific Decision for the Production of Tritium Using 
Commercial Light Water Reactors (CLWR)

A. CLWR EIS Alternatives

    In conformance with the Department's December 22 announcement, the 
preferred alternative identified in the CLWR Final EIS is to produce 
tritium in the Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors. As a result of the 
programmatic decision in this ROD (see section II), DOE will produce 
tritium in a CLWR, and the APT is designated as the back-up technology. 
Consequently, the comparisons described in this section are focused 
solely on the TVA reactor alternatives, and not the APT.
    The CLWR EIS evaluates the following alternatives: (1) No Action 
Alternative (which would result in the production of tritium in an 
accelerator at the SRS); and (2) Tritium production at one or more of 
the following Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) CLWRs: Watts Bar Nuclear 
Plant Unit 1 (Spring City, TN); Sequoyah Nuclear Plants Units 1 and 2 
(Soddy Daisy, TN); and Bellefonte Nuclear Plants Units 1 and 2 
(Hollywood, AL). The Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors are existing, 
operating CLWRs that produce electricity. Tritium production could be 
performed in these reactors without any significant modifications to 
these facilities and would not affect electricity production. The 
Bellefonte units are unfinished nuclear reactors. Bellefonte Unit 1 is 
approximately 90% complete, and Unit 2 is approximately 58% complete. 
In order to produce tritium in a Bellefonte reactor, construction would 
have to be completed and an operating license would have to be received 
from the NRC.

B. Non-Environmental Comparison of CLWR Reactor Alternatives

1. Cost and Flexibility Factors
    Investment cost is defined as the total of all remaining up-front 
costs necessary to design, develop, construct, startup, or otherwise 
establish tritium production capacity at each of the CLWRs. Investment 
costs are generally the same as project costs. Life-cycle cost is 
defined as the total amount of money spent to produce about 100 
kilograms of tritium over the life of the alternative. Life-cycle cost 
includes investment cost, all operating costs, and decontamination and 
decommissioning (D&D) costs.

[[Page 26378]]

    Cost to Meet Current Requirements (cost comparisons are expressed 
in constant FY 1999 dollars).
    The investment cost for the tritium-supply system that would use 
the Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors is estimated to be about $580 
million, of which approximately $350 million are associated with 
designing, constructing, and starting up the new TEF. Total investment 
costs for the tritium-supply system that includes the Bellefonte 
alternative are estimated to be $1.8 billion to $2.4 billion, depending 
on the plan selected for payments to TVA to complete the reactor. The 
Watts Bar/Sequoyah alternative could be accommodated within the DOE 
Defense Programs budget but the Bellefonte alternative cannot.
    The life-cycle cost for the Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors ranges 
from $1.4 billion to $2.9 billion, based on the letter agreement 
between DOE and TVA signed on February 25, 1999. This includes $8 
million for D&D of the TEF. The upper end of the life-cycle cost range 
assumes that DOE would pay cash for the incremental increase in reactor 
fuel enrichment needed for a reactor to accommodate TPBARs. The lower 
end of the range assumes that highly enriched uranium, drawn from DOE's 
defense stocks, would be blended down to provide all the fuel for the 
host reactors. TVA would reimburse DOE at a market-based rate for that 
portion of the fuel cost not directly attributable to tritium 
production. Present discount value for the Watts Bar/Sequoyah option 
would be in the range of $880 million to $1.6 billion.
    Life-cycle cost of the Bellefonte alternative would be $1.2 billion 
to $2.8 billion, depending on the plan for payments to TVA and DOE's 
share of Bellefonte's power sales revenues. Because annual budget 
limitations would likely prevent DOE from making large up-front 
payments to TVA to complete Bellefonte, the lower-revenue-share/higher-
life-cycle-cost scenario is far more likely than the high revenue/low 
life-cycle cost scenario. For the Bellefonte alternative, no fuel 
transactions are assumed. Present discount value would be in the range 
of $1.6-2.0 billion. D&D of the TEF, but no other facility, is 
included.
    Conclusion: The Watts Bar/Sequoyah alternative has the lowest 
investment cost which can be accommodated within the DOE national 
security programs budget. There is also strong potential for the Watts 
Bar/Sequoyah option to have the lowest life-cycle cost because of the 
likelihood that Bellefonte life-cycle costs would be near the high end 
of the range. In addition, the Watts Bar/Sequoyah alternative has a 
significantly lower financial risk because DOE would not pay until 
tritium is produced. With the Bellefonte alternative there is a degree 
of risk that, having paid for the plant, DOE would not receive any 
return from net power revenues because of changes in the power market 
or failure of the reactor to go into operation.

Cost To Meet Reduced START II Requirements

    If START II comes into force, the tritium need date could be around 
2011 and the maximum tritium production rate may be reduced to about 
1.5 kilograms per year. If so, the existing commercial reactor 
alternative's investment cost would remain about the same as the 
current case. Life-cycle cost for the commercial reactor alternative, 
using the existing TVA reactors would be in the range of $2.2-2.5 
billion, based on the DOE-TVA letter of agreement of February 25, 1999. 
The upper end of this range assumes DOE pays cash for incremental 
increases in reactor fuel enrichment. The low end of this range assumes 
DOE fuel stocks are blended to provide for the incremental increase in 
fuel enrichment. The range could be lower still if TVA purchased all 
its fuel from DOE. The Bellefonte alternative's relatively high 
investment costs would not change under a START II scenario and the 
life-cycle cost would be reduced by $100 million or less.
    Conclusion: Under a START II scenario, investment and life-cycle 
costs would be lowest for the Watts Bar/Sequoyah alternative.

Flexibility To Meet Changing Requirements

    If START II is ratified, the U.S. may decide to reduce its tritium 
production requirements, thus moving the need date to around FY 2011 
and reducing tritium production requirements. Stockpile reductions 
beyond START II are also possible and would result in further extension 
of the tritium need date and reductions in tritium production 
requirements.
    The Bellefonte reactor alternative's flexibility characteristics 
are limited. While there is great flexibility in amounts of tritium 
that can be produced, the large up-front investment cost would have no 
relation to tritium requirements. Once DOE committed itself to 
completion of the reactor, there would be no opportunity to reduce 
investment costs if stockpile tritium requirements were reduced. The 
annual net operating costs of this alternative would vary slightly with 
tritium demand only because of reductions in the cost for TPBAR 
manufacturing and transportation, thus reducing the total life-cycle 
cost.
    The use of the existing Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors is the most 
flexible with respect to changing stockpile levels. If the tritium need 
date is extended, most investment for this alternative could be 
suspended indefinitely and then restarted later. A substantial portion 
of DOE's operating costs would be based on tritium demand on a pay-as-
you-go basis. Except for minimal standby costs, DOE would pay for 
irradiation services, TPBAR manufacturing, and transportation 
operations only during those years when tritium is actually produced. 
The amount spent for irradiation services would be dependent on the 
amount of tritium produced. If the tritium need date is extended before 
the TEF handles its first increment of radioactive material, that 
facility could remain in standby indefinitely for less than $1 million 
per year.
    Conclusion: The use of the existing Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors 
results in the greatest degree of flexibility to meet changing 
requirements, especially in view of the potential for future reductions 
in the nuclear weapons stockpile.

Arms Control/Nonproliferation

    The use of the currently operating Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors 
has unique advantages not available with any other alternative, 
including the Bellefonte option, which serve to offset the 
nonproliferation implications of using these reactors. It is the only 
option that does not require a very large up-front capital expenditure. 
It is the only option that allows the nation to pursue the goal of 
further arms reductions without commitment to a major new weapons 
facility. By selecting Watts Bar and Sequoyah, the nation is assured of 
a long-term option to make tritium, which may not have to be exercised 
for many years if arms reduction efforts are successful, as DOE hopes 
they would be.
    By not committing itself to the construction of a major new weapons 
facility, the U.S. can underscore to other nations, especially would-be 
proliferant nations, its continuing pursuit of smaller nuclear weapons 
stockpiles. This would be consistent with recent U.S. actions, 
including cessation of underground nuclear testing, the stoppage of 
plutonium production, and closure or withdrawal of defense missions 
from several sites in the nuclear weapons complex. Commitment to a 
major new weapons facility could be seen as building up U.S. nuclear

[[Page 26379]]

weapons production capabilities at a time when the U.S. is seeking to 
reassure other nations of its commitment to nuclear arms reductions.
    These factors offset the fact that the use of the three reactors 
for tritium production would depart from the general practice of 
maintaining a distinction between U.S. defense and civilian nuclear 
activities. Moreover, the Department has determined that the impact of 
this issue on U.S. nonproliferation policy is manageable, given the 
surrounding circumstances enumerated above.
    Conclusion: The use of the currently operating Watts Bar and 
Sequoyah reactors is most consistent with stated U.S. nuclear weapons 
stockpile reduction and nonproliferation goals.
2. Technical Factors

Capacity and Schedule

    The Bellefonte alternative and the Watts Bar/Sequoyah alternative 
could both achieve a production capacity of about 3 kilograms of 
tritium per year. No matter which alternative is selected, the first 
batch of tritium could begin production in early FY 2004 when the Watts 
Bar reactor is scheduled to complete a refueling outage. Because many 
technical and regulatory issues have been addressed already, there is a 
high degree of confidence that this initial irradiation schedule can be 
met. The first batch of tritium gas could be delivered to the stockpile 
as soon as the TEF is operational. Because the Watts Bar and Sequoyah 
reactors would be used to irradiate the initial batches of TPBARs, 
delays in completing the Bellefonte reactor would not be expected to 
impact the tritium production schedule. Under current START I 
requirements, neither reactor alternative would require the use of the 
tritium reserve.
    Conclusion: Each reactor alternative can achieve capacity 
requirements. There is a high likelihood that, with adequate funding, 
each of the reactor alternatives can meet the schedule and the tritium 
reserve would not be affected.

Regulatory and Licensing Issues

    The Bellefonte alternative would have to be licensed as a new 
nuclear power plant. The plant's initial NRC operating license would 
also permit tritium production. This process is likely to take up to 5 
years. This would not affect national security because initial tritium 
production would begin with the Watts Bar reactor. Delays in getting 
Bellefonte in operation would, however, delay and possibly reduce DOE's 
receipt of revenues from Bellefonte power sales, if any.
    The NRC would have to amend the operating licenses of the Watts Bar 
and Sequoyah reactors to permit production-scale irradiation of 
tritium-producing rods. DOE expects that NRC would be in a position to 
act upon the amendment requests well in advance of the planned October 
2003 start of irradiation. Some experience has already been gained in 
this area because the Watts Bar reactor's operating license was amended 
to permit the confirmatory test irradiation of 32 TPBARs.
    Conclusion: The Bellefonte alternative has potential for these 
issues to impact its schedule, but is not likely to affect tritium 
production. However, delays in getting Bellefonte on line would reduce 
the Government's receipts from its share of Bellefonte revenues, if 
any. The Watts Bar/Sequoyah option is not likely to be affected by 
regulatory issues. Watts Bar and Sequoyah are preferred over Bellefonte 
because the completion and initial licensing of a new nuclear facility 
entails greater technical and financial risk than obtaining a license 
amendment for existing facilities.

C. Comparison of Environmental Impacts of CLWR Alternatives

    The relative differences in environmental impacts between tritium 
production in operating CLWRs (Watts Bar and Sequoyah) and the 
completion and operation of the incomplete Bellefonte Unit 1 reactor 
are described in the Supplemental Programmatic Record of Decision, 
Section II.C, above. As described in that section and as documented in 
the CLWR EIS, DOE expects that the overall environmental impacts 
associated with tritium production in a CLWR would be small. 
Consequently, the environmental impacts associated with the CLWR 
alternatives are not considered a major discriminating factor in this 
decision. Based on all of the environmental factors considered, the use 
of the Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors is the environmentally preferred 
alternative.

D. CLWR Decision

    DOE selects the Watts Bar Unit 1 and the Sequoyah Unit 1 and 2 
reactors as the specific CLWRs to produce tritium for national security 
purposes. Compared to completing the Bellefonte reactor, the use of the 
currently operating Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors for tritium 
production would have the:
     Lowest investment cost and lowest life-cycle cost under 
most-likely scenarios.
     Lowest financial risk.
     Greatest flexibility to meet changing requirements.
     Most consistency with stated arms reduction goals.
     Lowest overall incremental environmental impact.
    By selecting the Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors, highly enriched 
uranium, drawn from DOE's defense stocks, would be blended down to 
provide for the enrichment increase.

IV. Site-Specific Decision for Construction and Operation of a 
Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) at the Savannah River Site

A. TEF Alternatives

    The proposed action addressed in the Final EIS for the Construction 
and Operation of a TEF at the Savannah River Site (SRS) is to design, 
construct, test, and operate TEF at SRS to provide tritium extraction 
capability to support tritium production technology. The purpose of TEF 
is to extract tritium-containing gases from TPBARs irradiated in a CLWR 
or from targets of similar design, and deliver the tritium-containing 
gases to Building 233-H, the existing Tritium Loading Facility, for 
final purification. As described below, DOE evaluated two reasonable 
alternatives and a no-action alternative in the TEF Final EIS.
1. Construct a New Facility in the H-Area (Preferred Alternative)
    As identified in the TEF Final EIS, the preferred alternative is to 
locate TEF in H-Area, immediately adjacent to and west of Building 233-
H within the boundaries of SRS. The reasons for co-locating TEF close 
to Building 233-H are: (1) To share common support facilities, 
services, and some personnel; (2) to facilitate the transfer of tritium 
between the two facilities; and (3) to use certain gas-handling 
processes located in H-Area. TEF would consist of a concrete industrial 
facility constructed partly below grade. The facility would be divided 
into two major areas: (1) A remote handling area (RHA) and (2) a 
tritium processing building. The tritium processing building would be 
entirely aboveground; the floor of the RHA would be below grade. 
Construction of the proposed facility would require approximately 4 to 
5 years. Major process and operation systems included within the 
proposed TEF would be: (1) The Receiving, Handling, and Storage System 
that would support all functions related to the receipt, handling, 
preparation, and storage of incoming radioactive sources and outgoing 
radioactive waste materials; (2) the Tritium Extraction System that 
would

[[Page 26380]]

get tritium and other gases from irradiated TPBARs, remove contaminants 
from the gas stream, and store the hydrogen isotope/helium mixture; (3) 
the Tritium/Product Processing Systems that would separate and purify 
process gases from the irradiated TPBAR materials; (4) the Tritium 
Analysis and Accountability Systems that would support monitoring and 
tritium accountability; (5) the Solid Waste Management System that 
would receive solid waste generated by TEF for management and storage 
prior to disposal in the SRS E-Area vaults; and (6) the Heating, 
Ventilation, and Air Conditioning System that would provide and 
distribute conditioned supply air to the underground RHA and the 
aboveground tritium processing area and also discharge exhaust air to 
the environment via a 100-foot stack.
2. Upgrading the Existing Allied General Nuclear Services (AGNS) 
Facility
    An alternative to constructing a new TEF within H-Area is to 
refurbish and use the existing Allied General Nuclear Services (AGNS) 
facility located in Barnwell County, adjacent to the eastern boundary 
of SRS. AGNS was completed in 1976, and portions of the facility were 
tested with natural uranium in anticipation of obtaining an operating 
license to process commercial spent nuclear fuel. However, due to a 
change in government policy on reprocessing commercial spent nuclear 
fuel, the facility never opened. It was cleaned up and placed in 
standby in 1977 and shut down in 1983. The AGNS facility was designed 
and built to NRC standards. It would not meet all applicable DOE Orders 
without major modifications as discussed below. Utilization of AGNS 
would necessitate some new construction and some modifications. 
Extraction furnaces would have to be designed, built, and installed. A 
drying oven to remove pool water from CLWR TPBAR bundles or bundles of 
targets of similar design unloaded in the wet basin would be required 
(at AGNS, TPBARs would be stored in existing fuel storage basins). A 
process gas stripper would have to be added to reduce stack tritium 
releases. Although rail lines to the existing facility have been 
removed, the tracks within the facility staging area and into the cask 
unloading bays are still in place. Roads on the AGNS property need 
moderate repair; and a short connecting road tying AGNS into the SRS 
road system would have to be constructed. Other requirements include 
refurbishing the heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) fans, 
motors, high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters and dampers; and 
replacing the chiller water, fire protection, electrical, security, and 
personnel protection systems.
3. No Action Alternative
    Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not construct and 
operate a TEF either at the preferred location in H-Area or at the 
alternate location at AGNS. Under the no-action alternative, DOE could 
incorporate tritium extraction capability into the APT facility at SRS. 
However, because the use of existing commercial light water reactors 
has been chosen as the primary tritium supply, selection of no action 
for the TEF would result in the inability to extract tritium from the 
irradiated TPBARs because an APT (with extraction capabilities) would 
not be built. In that case, DOE would not be able to fulfill the 
purpose and need for the proposed action. Such a decision would be 
inconsistent with the December 5, 1995 ROD for the Tritium Supply 
Programmatic EIS, as well as the programmatic decision documented in 
this Consolidated ROD. Based on the supplemental Tritium Supply and 
Recycling ROD, the no-action alternative for tritium extraction is 
unreasonable and is not further discussed in this portion of the 
Consolidated ROD.

B. Non-Environmental Comparison of Alternatives

1. Cost and Technical Factors

Cost

    The life cycle cost estimate for the TEF at the preferred 
alternative (H-Area) is $920 million compared to the AGNS facility 
upgrades which is $1085 million. Both estimates are in constant FY 1999 
dollars. Because of its close proximity to other tritium facilities in 
H-Area, the H-Area alternative for TEF enables the sharing of common 
support facilities, services, and some personnel; to facilitate the 
transfer of tritium between the two facilities; and to use certain gas-
handling processes located in H-Area. Consequently the life-cycle cost 
of operating the TEF at this location is less than AGNS. The AGNS 
estimate exceeds the TEF estimate due to the added cost of logistics in 
moving the tritium containing gases from the AGNS location to the H-
Area location for final processing and loading and the additional gas 
processing equipment needed at the AGNS location.
    Conclusion: Locating the TEF in the H-Area would have a lower life-
cycle cost than locating it at AGNS.

Technical

    Several technical aspects were considered in evaluating the 
alternatives. For the AGNS facility, these technical aspects included: 
construction of several new buildings to house the gas processing 
equipment needed (existing facilities were not large enough to house 
the needed gloveboxes), installation of a drying oven to remove 
moisture from TPBARs wetted during underwater cask unloading, the 
addition of a waste processing facility, and an overhaul of the AGNS 
ventilation system to facilitate the tritium gas processing 
requirements. Technical factors involving the location of the preferred 
alternative are: (1) To share common support facilities, services, and 
some personnel; (2) to facilitate the transfer of tritium between the 
two facilities; and (3) to use certain gas-handling processes located 
in H Area.
    The design basis of the Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) requires 
that tritium-containing gasses be supplied to the existing Tritium 
Loading Facility (Building 233-H). Extracted gasses would not be 
isotopically separated at TEF but would utilize existing equipment in 
Building 233-H for separation of the hydrogen isotopes. In addition, 
the TEF would not be designed to separate hydrogen and non-hydrogen 
isotopes. The cost savings to the TEF project by not including this 
separation equipment is approximately $50 million. If the TEF were 
built at the AGNS facility, the TEF would have to include all of the 
necessary separation equipment as well as the infrastructure required 
for the facility (electrical, waste water, fire protection, staffing, 
etc.). The hydrogen isotopic separation equipment would need to 
``purify'' the extracted tritium-containing gasses prior to loading on 
a hydride bed for transporting to the 233-H facility. Additionally, 
utilization of AGNS would require the unloading of shipping casks 
underwater which in turn would require the addition of a drying area 
for the TPBARs prior to extraction. The introduction of water in or 
around a tritium source greatly increases the hazard to operations 
personnel in the form of tritium oxide, which is 10,000 times more 
hazardous to humans than elemental tritium. However, collective doses 
to the population are expected to equal those of the H-Area 
alternative.
    Conclusion: The ability of the preferred alternative to deliver gas 
directly to the 233-H facility offers several technical advantages over 
the AGNS alternative.

[[Page 26381]]

C. Comparison of Environmental Impacts of TEF Alternatives

    In general DOE considers the expected impacts on the physical, 
biological, and human environment for both reasonable alternatives to 
be minor and consistent with what might be expected for an industrial 
facility. In the comparison of impacts, DOE determined that changes 
from current site environmental conditions of less than 5 percent are 
within the margin of error and the conservatism inherent in the 
analyses. Therefore, DOE finds that in those instances there would be 
no measurable change from current environmental conditions. As 
documented in the TEF Final EIS, overall, there are not expected to be 
any significant differences in environmental impacts between the two 
reasonable alternatives. Except for the no-action alternative, the 
construction and operating impacts of the TEF would be added to the 
impacts of the CLWR alternatives discussed in Section III above.
1. Construction Impacts
    Minor differences between the alternatives are expected due to 
construction. Because much of the AGNS alternative involves internal 
modifications to an existing facility, less land would be disturbed and 
less construction waste generated. However, because the land at H-Area 
is already a densely developed, industrial area, impacts associated 
with land disturbance are not a significant factor. With respect to 
construction waste volumes, potential impacts to SRS waste treatment, 
storage, and disposal facilities would be small for both alternatives 
because of the low volumes of waste to be generated. At the AGNS site, 
construction noise and activity could have localized adverse effects on 
wildlife; however, this is not expected to be significant. Impacts 
associated with socioeconomics would be similar as each alternative 
would have a 5-year construction duration and a similar peak workforce 
(740 for H-Area, 685 for AGNS). While the creation of these jobs would 
have a positive stabilizing effect on the SRS employment, the overall 
impact would be minor since either alternative would change the 
regional employment by less than one-half of one percent.
    Conclusion: Although the environmental impacts associated with 
construction are considered small for both alternatives, the AGNS 
alternative would have a smaller construction impact.
2. Operating Impacts
    Operation of the TEF at H-Area or at AGNS could cause impacts in 
the following areas: human health (normal operations and accidents); 
waste generation; and socioeconomics. These areas are discussed below:

Human Health

    A primary difference between the preferred alternative at H-Area 
and the alternative at AGNS is AGNS's proximity to non-government land, 
and therefore, its greater potential for impacting offsite individuals 
due to releases near the site boundary. Additional differences include 
stack height and radionuclides released to the environment. The 
quantities released at AGNS would differ from those emitted at H-Area 
because each rod would have to be cut three times in order to fit in 
the AGNS furnace, while full-height TPBARs would be punctured at H-
Area. While processing CLWR TPBARs, the contributions of 
nonradiological air constituents at AGNS would be 0.13 percent of the 
applicable standard, and still lower for the onsite H-Area alternative. 
The radiological dose for the offsite maximally exposed individual 
would be 0.15 millirem per year for AGNS and 0.02 millirem per year for 
H-Area. Both of these would be well below the regulatory annual limit 
of 10 millirem from airborne releases. Because of the location of AGNS, 
some minority or low-income communities could be disproportionately 
affected by radiological and nonradiological air emissions; however, 
such impacts are expected to be minor and within all regulatory 
standards. Compared to the proposed action, for the maximally exposed 
individual the AGNS alternative is projected to have a 0.13 millirem 
per year higher radiation (due to its closer proximity to the boundary) 
but nearly equal collective population doses.
    With respect to impacts from potential accidents, the lower 
population density in the communities near AGNS would result in a 
slightly smaller collective doses from potential accidents. For each of 
the alternatives, the design-basis accident would yield risks to the 
50-mile population of approximately 7 latent cancer fatalities every 
100,000 years.
    Conclusion: Although the differences between the two alternatives 
are not significant, the preferred alternative (H-area) would have a 
lower impact on human health because of its greater distance from the 
site boundary.

Waste Generation

    Both alternatives would generate 232 cubic yards of waste annually. 
The potential impacts to SRS waste treatment, storage, and disposal 
facilities would be small because the volumes would be small relative 
to existing waste management capabilities.
    Conclusion: There is no apparent difference between the two 
alternatives' generation of waste.

Socioeconomics

    Because of its proximity to other tritium facilities in H-Area, the 
H-Area alternative for TEF facilitates the use of common support 
facilities, services, and some personnel. Consequently, the operations 
workforce for the H-Area alternative is approximately 60 percent as 
much as the AGNS alternative (108 versus 175). While the socioeconomic 
impact for each alternative is considered minor, the reduced staffing 
requirement for the H-Area alternative is a major factor in its reduced 
life-cycle cost compared to the AGNS alternative.
    Conclusion: Although the AGNS alternative would provide 67 more 
jobs for facility operators, the difference is not significant.
3. Environmentally Preferred Alternative
    As described in the TEF Final EIS, the potential impacts from the 
preferred alternative or the AGNS alternative on the physical, 
biological, and human environment would be minor and consistent with 
what might be expected for an industrial facility. The preferred site 
for TEF is within H-Area, a densely developed, industrialized area near 
the center of SRS, approximately 6.8 miles from the nearest (western) 
SRS boundary. There are four existing tritium-related facilities in the 
immediate vicinity of the proposed TEF site. Advantages to locating TEF 
within H-Area include minimal environmental impacts associated with 
construction and operation of the proposed TEF due to the developed 
nature of H-Area; availability of site infrastructure (i.e., power, 
steam, potable water, sewerage); and proximity to existing tritium-
related facilities and processes to support TEF operations. Both the 
nonradiological air constituents and annual radiological dose are lower 
for the preferred alternative compared to the AGNS alternative. 
Consequently, the H-Area alternative is the environmentally preferred 
alternative.

D. TEF Decision

    The preferred alternative, to design, construct, test, and operate 
a new TEF in H-Area immediately adjacent to and

[[Page 26382]]

west of Building 233-H, at the SRS, is selected for implementation. 
This alternative has the lowest life-cycle cost, has technical 
advantages, and is environmentally preferred.

V. Site-Specific Decision for Accelerator Production of Tritium 
(APT)

    DOE has prepared this part of the Consolidated Record of Decision 
to implement that portion of the December 22, 1998 announcement 
designating the APT as the backup technology. It is based on the 
analysis from the Accelerator Production of Tritium at the Savannah 
River Site Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0270) issued 
in March 1999, along with other factors such as DOE statutory mission 
requirements, national security policy, cost, schedule and technical 
risks.

A. APT Design Features and System Alternatives Considered

    The EIS evaluated the no action alternative, and technology and 
siting alternatives relating to radiofrequency power, accelerator 
operating temperature, feedstock material, cooling water system, APT 
site, electric power supply, and APT design variations. The following 
section summarizes these alternatives.
1. No Action Alternative
    No action for the APT is to produce tritium in a commercial light 
water reactor and to construct and operate a tritium extraction 
facility. Under the no action alternative the APT is designated the 
back-up technology for tritium production. As back-up, DOE would 
complete key research and development, and preliminary design 
activities for the APT at SRS (but would not construct the facility). 
Selection of APT technology and siting alternatives would support the 
research and development and preliminary design activities and 
facilitate implementation should construction and operation of the APT 
be called for in the future.
2. Radiofrequency Power Alternatives
    APT would use radiofrequency waves to accelerate protons in the 
accelerator. Specially designed vacuum electron tubes would convert 
electric power to radiofrequency waves outside of the accelerator. The 
waves are then transported into the accelerator and used to accelerate 
the protons. The APT EIS evaluated two alternatives to supply the 
radiofrequency power for the accelerator, (1) klystron radiofrequency 
power tubes (DOE's preferred alternative), and (2) high order mode 
inductive output radiofrequency power tubes.
3. Operating Temperature Alternatives
    The operating temperature affects the electrical components in the 
accelerator. The greater the power converted to heat the greater the 
amount of electricity used. If the temperature of some materials (e.g., 
niobium) falls to values near absolute zero (-459 deg.F), the 
electrical resistance becomes essentially zero, and the component uses 
much less electricity. This is called superconductivity. The APT EIS 
evaluated two operating temperature alternatives for the accelerator: 
(1) operating electrical components at essentially room temperature, 
and (2) operating high energy accelerating structures at 
superconducting temperatures and the rest at room temperature (DOE's 
preferred alternative).
4. Feedstock Material Alternatives
    The feedstock material absorbs the neutrons freed during spallation 
resulting in the production of a tritium atom and a byproduct atom. DOE 
would use the same target/blanket as the neutron source regardless of 
the feedstock material. The APT EIS evaluated two feedstock materials, 
(1) Helium-3 (DOE's preferred alternative) and (2) Lithium-6.
5. Cooling Water System Alternatives
    The APT requires cooling water to keep target/blanket components, 
radiation shielding, beamstops and other components from overheating. 
DOE proposes to use a similar method for cooling each component. This 
is a primary coolant loop isolated from the environment through heat 
exchangers. Components with the potential for radioactive contamination 
would require a secondary loop to cool the primary loop and isolate 
potential contamination from the environment. The final cooling system, 
regardless of the number of loops, would use a cooling water system to 
discharge heat to the environment. The APT EIS evaluated four designs 
to provide the necessary cooling capacity for the APT: (1) Mechanical-
draft cooling towers with makeup water from the Savannah River and 
discharge into pre-cooler Ponds 2 and 5 of Par Pond (DOE's preferred 
alternative); (2) mechanical-draft cooling towers with makeup water 
from groundwater wells and discharge into pre-cooler Ponds 2 and 5 of 
Par Pond; (3) once through cooling using Savannah River water and 
discharge into pre-cooler Ponds 2 and 5 of Par Pond; and (4) use the 
existing K-Area cooling tower with Savannah River water makeup and 
discharge to Pen Branch via Indian Grave Branch. A design variation for 
the first three alternatives would be to discharge the heated water to 
the head of Pond C of Par Pond but downstream from pre-cooler Ponds 2 
and 5.
6. Siting Alternatives
    DOE conducted a screening process to select potentially suitable 
sites within the SRS for the APT. Based on a weighing and balancing of 
the criteria, DOE selected two sites for further analysis. The APT EIS 
evaluated (1) a site 3 miles northeast of the Tritium Loading Facility, 
and approximately 6.5 miles from the SRS boundary (DOE's preferred 
alternative); and (2) a site 2 miles northwest of the Tritium Loading 
Facility, and approximately 4 miles from the SRS boundary.
7. Electric Power Supply Alternatives
    APT requires large amounts of electricity to operate. Therefore, 
DOE evaluated two alternatives for the source of electricity for the 
APT: (1) Obtain electricity from existing commercial capacity and 
through market transactions (DOE's preferred alternative); (2) obtain 
electricity from the construction and operation of a new coal-fired or 
a natural-gas-fired generating plant.
8. APT Design Variations
    In addition to the cooling water discharge design variation 
described above, the APT EIS evaluated two other variations. The first 
is a modular, or staged, accelerator configuration. It would use the 
same accelerator architecture as the baseline but could be constructed 
in stages. An initial stage would produce less tritium than the 
baseline APT but would be capable of producing as much tritium as the 
baseline APT with the addition of a second stage.
    The second variation would combine tritium separation and tritium 
extraction facilities to take advantage of common process systems and 
would be capable of handling both Helium-3 and Lithium-6 feedstock 
material.

B. Non-Environmental Comparison of APT Design Features and System 
Alternatives

    Technical comparisons are presented for each set of alternatives 
described above. These are based on various studies completed for each 
alternative.

[[Page 26383]]

1. Technology Factors

Radiofrequency Power

    The klystron is an established technology that has been used for 
years. Thus, this technology has proven reliability and presents no 
technical challenges to its use in the APT. The inductive output tube 
has several commercial applications, but additional design and 
prototyping is needed to demonstrate the applicability to APT. These 
demonstration tests are scheduled for completion this spring. The 
inductive output tubes have a greater efficiency in converting DC power 
to RF power which would reduce power requirements by 15 percent. The 
inductive output tube also uses one half of the voltage resulting in 
reduced shielding requirements.
    Conclusion: The preferred alternative of klystron power tubes would 
be used as the basis for the preliminary design. The inductive output 
tube offers technical advantages and reduces operating costs (less 
electricity used) and capital costs (less shielding needed). The 
continued development is justified to achieve these benefits.

Operating Temperature

    The room temperature accelerator technology is based on technology 
demonstrated at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The accelerator 
cavities are cooled by the primary water cooling system. As part of the 
accelerating structures the cavity lengths would increase in size in 
proportion to the increasing proton velocity. This results in greater 
complexity of maintenance because each cavity is unique.
    The superconducting technology uses two sizes of cavities which are 
cooled with liquid helium to almost absolute zero. This cooling method 
eliminates the need for water cooling in the superconducting cavities. 
The two different sizes of cavities allows for simplified maintenance. 
The engineering development and demonstration program has completed the 
design and prototyping of these cavities.
    Conclusion: The superconducting cavities allow for easier 
accelerator maintenance. Experience has shown that liquid helium 
distribution systems are less prone to leakage than water systems.

Feedstock Materials

    Helium-3 is a nonradioactive gas that exists naturally in small 
quantities and is produced through the radioactive decay of tritium. 
The helium-3 is contained in tubes within the target/blanket. The 
helium-3 would absorb neutrons which converts it to tritium and 
hydrogen The helium-3 and tritium mixture would be continuously or 
semi-continuously transported via piping to the Tritium Separation 
Facility. The helium-3 purified in the separations process is returned 
to the target/blanket to produce additional tritium. This results in 
reduced inventories of tritium in the target/blanket and prevention of 
pollution since the helium-3 is recycled. The production of tritium can 
also be varied through controlling the number of neutrons but without 
sacrificing continuous separation.
    Lithium-6 would be in the form of rods that would be placed in the 
blanket area. These rods would be similar to the rods DOE used when it 
operated the SRS tritium production reactors. Because the lithium-6 is 
incorporated into solid rods, batch production of tritium is required 
resulting in a higher inventory of tritium in the target/blanket than 
the helium-3 alternative. Also the rods could not be recycled.
    Conclusion: The improved safety factors from reduced inventory of 
tritium in the helium-3 alternative along with the ability to recycle 
the helium-3 provides advantages for the helium-3 alternative. The 
added flexibility of varying production rates also makes the helium-3 
alternative attractive.

Cooling Water System

    The cooling water system alternatives were evaluated using three 
evaluation criteria, capital cost, life cycle cost, and permitting 
risk. The mechanical draft cooling tower with river water makeup was 
rated the lowest capital cost, the lowest life cycle cost, and the 
least risk associated with obtaining permits. The evaluation of risks 
associated with permits is based on the scope of changes to existing 
systems that would require regulatory reviews as well as the 
temperature of the blowdown water compared to the threshold limit. This 
evaluation placed the mechanical draft cooling tower with river water 
makeup as the best alternative. The mechanical draft cooling tower with 
ground water makeup was ranked second, once through cooling was third 
and the use of K-Area cooling tower was fourth. A separate evaluation 
for the design variation of discharge to Pond C of Par Pond was also 
completed. This evaluation showed a reduction in costs due to avoidance 
of costs associated with upgrades to the pre-cooler ponds.
    Conclusion: The mechanical draft cooling tower with river water 
makeup was evaluated as the best alternative based on capital cost, 
life-cycle cost, and permitting risk criteria. The design variation of 
discharging to Pond C of Par Pond added the benefit of reducing costs.

Siting

    The two sites evaluated in the EIS, a site 3 miles northeast of the 
Tritium Loading Facility (northeast site), and a site 2 miles northwest 
of the Tritium Loading Facility (northwest site), were similar in most 
characteristics. No differences in engineering factors were identified 
in the Site Selection Study (WSRC-TR-96-0279). The ranking factors 
where there is a difference between the two sites were in ecology, 
where the northeast site was better; depth to groundwater, where the 
northwest site was better; and buffer distance to the public off-site, 
where the northeast site was better.
    Conclusion: Due to increased buffer distance which would reduce 
public radiological exposure in the case of an incident, the northeast 
site is a better location.

Electrical Supply

    The two alternatives evaluated present different technical and 
financial challenges. The alternative to construct a new dedicated coal 
or gas fired plant would probably require both contractual and 
financial guarantees by DOE to the utility providing the electricity. 
Prior to a utility constructing a plant, the DOE would need to enter a 
long-term power purchase agreement to provide assurance to the utility 
that it would have a market for the output of the plant. The 
contractual arrangement would therefore entail take-or-pay obligations 
on the part of DOE for an amount of time necessary for growth in system 
demand to absorb the generating capacity constructed.
    In the alternative of relying on existing capacity and contracting 
for power purchased on the market, the take-or-pay and/or notice-of-
termination provisions associated with a dedicated plant can be 
minimized or entirely avoided. Shorter term retail sales contracts (2 
to 5 years) can be accommodated which would permit the DOE to 
periodically recompete the APT purchase arrangements. This would also 
allow DOE to take advantage of renewable energy opportunities that 
could become available in the future.
    The electric power industry is presently subject to significant and 
widespread changes, with approximately 40 states presently addressing 
the issue of restructuring the retail power market to permit 
competition among suppliers. A long-term power supply contract tied to 
the construction of a dedicated generating

[[Page 26384]]

facility would eliminate DOE's flexibility in taking advantage of 
changes in the power supply market over the life of the plant.
    Conclusion: The alternative of purchasing power from the electric 
grid through market transaction provides DOE with greater long-term 
flexibility and avoids the need to commit to a long-term contract for 
power.

Modular Design

    The modular design was developed to provide tritium production 
flexibility in the face of changing stockpile requirements, and to 
optimize the project costs and funding profile. Several different 
modular designs were evaluated using cost and schedule, technical and 
programmatic risk, and the potential for future upgrades as general 
criteria. The preferred design meets current requirements, but allows 
for a delay in the decision to construct an APT that meets Start I 
requirements for several years, while avoiding the commitment to the 
cost of a START I sized facility.
    Conclusion: The modular design provides the DOE with enhanced 
flexibility to only commit to an APT sized to meet requirements in 
several years.

C. Comparison of Environmental Impacts of APT Alternatives

    The APT EIS presents an evaluation of environmental impacts for the 
combination of the preferred alternatives identified above, and the 
differences found for each of the alternatives. This summary presents 
the same format for comparison of the environmental impacts.
1. Construction Impacts for the Preferred Technology and Site 
Alternatives
    APT would require conversion of approximately 250 acres of land 
from forest to industrial uses. This land would be graded or leveled 
during construction. Additional roads, bridge upgrades, rail lines, and 
utility upgrades would be required. No geologically significant 
formations or surface faults occur on the site. Soils on the site are 
not classified as significant. The change in land use would have no 
marked reduction in plant and animal abundance or diversity. There are 
no impacts to wetlands or threatened or endangered species.
    Impact to surface waters are negligible, however, dewatering of the 
construction site could result in short-term increases in solids to 
receiving water bodies. Impacts to aquatic organisms in Upper Three 
Runs and tributaries would be minor due to the use of soil and erosion 
control measures.
    Air emissions would be negligible at the site, and purchases of 
electricity would be dispersed. There are no radiological emissions 
during construction. Visual impacts would be negligible. Noise, 
primarily from construction equipment is not audible at the SRS 
boundary, however, construction workers could encounter noise levels 
that would require administrative controls or protective equipment.
    APT would generate hazardous solid waste and sanitary solid and 
liquid waste. These would be deposited at SRS, and would require some 
landfill construction. Estimated annual volumes of waste are 560 cubic 
meters of sanitary solid waste, 30,000 cubic meters of construction 
debris, and 3.6 million gallons of industrial wastewater.
    Impacts to public health during construction would be negligible 
because concentrations of non-radiological constituents are below 
applicable limits. Increased traffic would result in a small increase 
in traffic fatalities. Occupational injuries are not expected to be 
different than those occurring on any large construction site.
    The work force required for construction is estimated to peak at 
1,400 jobs. This would not result in large regional impacts.
2. Operational Impacts for the Preferred Technology and Site 
Alternatives
    No impacts would occur to landforms, soils, hydrology or geology 
during operations. No dewatering is required for operations. Electrical 
use is estimated at 3.1 terawatt-hours per year. Negligible impacts to 
terrestrial ecology and threatened and endangered species are expected. 
Mechanical draft cooling towers would result in salt deposition on 
vegetation, however, maximum levels are below threshold levels. 
Operations would result in minor impacts to wetlands due to marginally 
higher temperature of blowdown water.
    Blowdown rates of approximately 2,000 gallons per minute would 
cause negligible impact on surface water levels. Using Par Pond and 
pre-cooler ponds as discharge points for cooling water, temperatures 
would not exceed 90 degrees F. Contaminated sediments could be 
resuspended, resulting in negligible additional fatal cancers from 
exposure to the public. Impingement and entrainment from intake of 
river water would not substantially affect Savannah River fisheries. 
Solids in blowdown water would have no impact on aquatic ecology. 
Discharge temperatures would only have small localized effects on 
aquatic communities.
    Non-radiological air emissions would be well within the applicable 
regulatory standards. Radioactive airborne emissions would result in 
expected latent cancer fatalities of 0.0008 annually. There would be 
negligible impacts to visual resources, with plumes visible under 
certain meteorological conditions. Noise generated by equipment and 
traffic would not be audible at the SRS boundary.
    APT operations would generate solid and liquid wastes but no high-
level or transuranic waste; waste volumes would have a negligible 
impact on the capacities of waste facilities. The generation of 
electricity would produce various types of waste including fly ash, 
bottom ash, and scrubber sludge. Estimated annual amounts of waste 
generated are 1,800 metric tons of sanitary solid waste, 3,800 metric 
tons of industrial waste, 140,000 gallons of radioactive wastewater, 
3.3 million gallons of sanitary wastewater, 920 million gallons of non-
radioactive process wastewater, 1,400 cubic meters of low-level 
radioactive waste, 3 cubic meters of high concentration radioactivity 
low-level radioactive waste, and 12 cubic meters of high concentration 
radioactivity mixed waste.
    The public would receive source radiation exposure from APT 
emissions and transportation of radioactive material. Workers would 
receive radiation exposure from facility operations and transportation 
of radioactive material and from electromagnetic fields. These would 
result in an annual risk of 0.0016 latent cancer fatalities. There 
would be negligible consequences from accidents with a frequency of 
less than once in the operating lifetime of the facility.
    The operational work force would be approximately 500. This would 
not result in large regional impacts. No adverse impacts on minority or 
low-income populations are expected.
3. Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

Radiofrequency Power Alternative--Inductive Output Tubes

    This alternative would have no change in estimated impacts from the 
preferred alternative for construction impacts. The only change in 
operational impacts from the preferred alternative is in impacts to 
surface waters. The

[[Page 26385]]

inductive output tube would require 7 percent less cooling water.

Operating Temperature Alternative--Operating Electrical Components at 
Room Temperature

    This alternative would have no changes in the estimated 
construction impacts as described for the preferred alternative, except 
that 100 fewer construction jobs are estimated, resulting in lower 
regional community impact; there would be a 9 percent reduction in 
sanitary waste generated; and there would be a 6 percent reduction in 
occupational injuries. During operations electricity usage is estimated 
to be 23 percent higher, and 37 percent more non-radioactive waste 
water would be generated.

Feedstock Material Alternative--Lithium-6

    This alternative would have no changes in the estimated 
construction impacts as described for the preferred alternative. For 
operations, the impacts would be similar to the preferred alternative 
except for slightly increased doses from airborne radiological 
emissions which would slightly increase the latent cancer fatalities. 
Also, eight percent more low-level radioactive waste, and 25 percent 
more high concentration mixed waste would be generated. A minor 
decrease in radiological doses from accidents with low probability of 
occurrence would also occur.

Cooling Water System Alternative--Once-Through Using River Water as 
Makeup

    This alternative would have no changes in the estimated 
construction impacts as described for the preferred alternative. 
Impacts from operations would also be similar, except blowdown rates of 
125,000 gallons per minute (a 2,000 percent increase) would result in 
higher temperatures to receiving bodies of water and would adversely 
affect aquatic communities. Also an increase of 1.5 feet in the water 
levels of the pre-cooler ponds would possibly affect wetland 
communities. Impingement of 2,600 fish, and entrainment of 3.4 million 
fish eggs and 6.4 million larvae annually would occur. Resuspension 
caused by the increased flows would result in slightly increased doses. 
Latent cancer fatalities would increase from 0.0016 to 0.0017 annually. 
No mechanical-draft cooling tower noise would be heard at the APT site, 
but pump noise would be occasionally audible to river traffic. No salt 
deposition would occur.

Cooling Water System Alternatives--Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers 
Using Groundwater Makeup

    This alternative would have no changes in the estimated 
construction impacts as described for the preferred alternative. 
Impacts from operations would also be similar except the removal of 
6,000 gallons per minute on a sustained basis could impact groundwater 
flow to streams and compact clay layers. No impingement and entrainment 
would occur.

Cooling Water System Design Variation--Discharge to Pond C Avoiding the 
Pre-cooler Ponds

    This design variation applies to the preferred alternative and the 
two cooling water system alternatives above. This variation would have 
no changes in the estimated construction impacts as described for the 
preferred alternative. The operational impacts would be similar to the 
preferred alternative, except that impacts to the pre-cooler ponds are 
eliminated, and there would be a minor increase in heated water impacts 
to Pond C.

Cooling Water System Alternatives--K-Area Cooling Tower Using River 
Water as Makeup

    This alternative would have no changes in the estimated 
construction impacts as described for the preferred alternative except 
the wastewater discharges would go to Pen Branch via Indian Grave 
Branch. The water levels in the upper reaches of the stream system 
would be raised. Additional cooling water piping to the K-Area would 
also be needed. The plume from K-Area cooling tower would likely be 
more visible. There would be no mechanical-draft cooling tower noise at 
the APT site, but pump and cooling tower noise in the K-Area would 
increase.

Site Location Alternative--2 Miles Northwest of Tritium Loading 
Facility

    This alternative would have no changes in the estimated 
construction impacts as described for the preferred alternative except 
the water table is deeper and would require less dewatering. Also 
traffic fatalities during construction would be twenty percent less. 
Changes in operational impacts from the preferred alternative are 
higher doses due to closer distance to the SRS boundary. The dose from 
all sources would increase latent cancer fatalities from 0.0016 to 
0.0017 annually.

Electric Power Supply Alternative--Construct New Plant

    The impacts of a new plant would be dependent on the specific 
location. A new coal facility would require 290 acres and a natural gas 
facility 110 acres. The types of impacts presented for the preferred 
alternative would also occur at the specific site for a new plant. 
Increased amounts of construction waste would be generated. 
Construction would require a peak work force of 1,100. Plant operations 
would require an additional 200 jobs.

Design Variations--Modular Design

    This variation would have no changes in the estimated construction 
impacts as described for the preferred alternative except construction 
wastes, health impacts, and peak employment all would be 10 percent 
lower. Operational impacts would also be similar with the following 
exceptions. Both blowdown water rates and non-radiological air 
emissions would be 10 percent lower. Electricity usage would be 2.0 
terawatt-hours per year, a 32 percent decrease. Wastes from operations 
would be 10 percent lower.

Design Variation--Combining Tritium Separation and Extraction 
Facilities

    This variation would have no changes in the estimated construction 
impacts as described for the preferred alternative. Operational impact 
differences would result in an increase in doses from airborne 
emissions from 0.0008 latent cancer fatalities to 0.0009.

No Action Alternative

    For the APT, no action is to not build the APT, but use the CLWR as 
a source of tritium. Since the APT would not be built or operated there 
would be no change in the existing environment at SRS.
4. Overall Environmental Conclusion
    As described above, and as documented in the environmental analyses 
that have been developed, it is expected that the overall environmental 
impacts associated with tritium production in an APT would be small. 
Consequently, the environmental impacts associated with the APT 
alternatives and design variations are not considered major 
discriminating factors in the decision. Based on all of the 
environmental factors considered, the no action alternative is the 
environmentally preferred alternative.

D. APT Decision

    DOE selects the APT as the backup tritium supply technology. DOE 
will complete preliminary design for the

[[Page 26386]]

APT facility. To focus this design effort DOE has made the following 
selections for the different sets of alternatives and design variations 
described and analyzed above and in the engineering and environmental 
documents.
1. Radiofrequency Power
    The preferred alternative of klystron power tubes would be used as 
the basis for the preliminary design because the inductive output tube 
design is still in development. The DOE would, however, continue with 
development of the inductive output tube. If at a future date, the 
development of the inductive output tube advances and the APT design is 
activated as a source of tritium, the inductive output tube may be 
substituted for the klystron power tubes.
    The klystron power tube uses additional electricity, but otherwise, 
the environmental impacts are similar for the two alternatives. From a 
technology and cost perspective, the inductive output tubes have a 
lower cost because they are smaller, more efficient and operate at 
lower voltage.
2. Operating Temperature
    The alternative of using superconducting components is selected as 
the preferred alternative for specific higher power sections of the 
accelerator. The use of superconducting components would have:
     Reduced electricity demands resulting in lower 
environmental impacts.
     Greater safety margin due to less chance for activation of 
the accelerating structures and cooling system that reduces the number 
of pipe penetrations into the accelerator.
     Only two cavity sizes allowing for simpler design and 
maintenance.
3. Feedstock Material
    The alternative using helium-3 as a feedstock material is selected 
as the preferred alternative for production of tritium. The use of 
helium-3 as a feedstock material would have:
     The least environmental impact.
     Greater flexibility in extracting the tritium on a semi-
continuous basis.
     Greater safety margin because the inventory of tritium in 
the target blanket and separations facilities is less.
4. Cooling Water System
    The alternative of mechanical-draft cooling towers with makeup 
water from the Savannah River is selected as the preferred alternative 
for the cooling system. The design variation of discharging to the head 
of Pond C, but downstream from the pre-cooler ponds, is also selected. 
This alternative is selected because it:
     Has the least environmental impacts.
     Avoids additional costs to upgrade the pre-cooler ponds.
5. Siting
    The site 3 miles northeast of the Tritium Loading Facility is 
selected as the preferred APT site. This site is selected because it 
results in:
     Greater buffer distance which would reduce public 
radiological exposure in case of an incident.
     Less impact to terrestrial and aquatic ecology.
6. Electric Power Supply
    The alternative of obtaining electricity from the existing 
commercial capacity and through market transactions is selected as the 
preferred alternative for electrical power supply. The alternative is 
selected because:
     It presents the least environmental impact.
     It provides the greatest flexibility in reducing costs 
through using market mechanisms to obtain bulk wholesale costs.
     It provides opportunities to use alternative supplies of 
power.
7. Modular Design Variation
    The modular design is selected as the preferred design for the APT 
because it:
     Provides capacity and cost flexibility in meeting changing 
tritium requirements.
8. Combine Tritium Separation and Tritium Extraction
    This design variation is not selected since the APT was not 
selected as the primary tritium source. Since the CLWR was selected as 
the primary source, a Tritium Extraction Facility must be built to 
support this decision.

VI. Consolidated Tritium Supply and Recycling Decision

    The Department of Energy will produce new tritium for national 
security purposes on a schedule and at a rate to meet the requirements 
of the President's Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan. Tritium will be 
produced by irradiating DOE-supplied tritium-producing rods in 
commercial light water reactors, specifically the Tennessee Valley 
Authority's currently operating Watts Bar Unit 1, Sequoyah Unit 1, and/
or Sequoyah Unit 2 reactors. To support this method of tritium 
production, a new Tritium Extraction Facility will be designed and 
constructed in the H-Area of DOE's Savannah River Site.
    The Accelerator Production of Tritium technology will be developed 
as the backup tritium supply. Engineering development and 
demonstration, preliminary design, and detailed design of key elements 
of the system will be completed to permit expeditious initiation of 
accelerator facility construction at the preferred location on the 
Savannah River Site should it be needed.
    The Fast Flux Test Facility will have no role in tritium 
production.

    Signed this 6th day of May 1999.
Bill Richardson,
Secretary of Energy.
[FR Doc. 99-12019 Filed 5-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P