[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7877-7887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2271]



[[Page 7877]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision for the Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research 
and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United States, 
Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility

AGENCY: Department of Energy (the Department).

ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD).

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

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the 
Department's missions include: (1) Producing isotopes for research and 
applications in medicine and industry; (2) meeting nuclear material 
needs of other Federal agencies; and (3) conducting research and 
development activities for civilian use of nuclear power. The 
Department has evaluated potential enhancements to its nuclear 
infrastructure that would allow it to meet these responsibilities over 
approximately the next three to four decades. As part of this 
evaluation, the Department prepared the Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy 
Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United 
States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility (Nuclear 
Infrastructure or NI PEIS) pursuant to the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA). The NI PEIS evaluates environmental impacts that 
could result from implementation of alternatives and options that were 
considered for enhancement of the Department's nuclear infrastructure. 
The Final NI PEIS (DOE/EIS-0310) was issued on December 15, 2000 (65 FR 
78484).
    After considering the environmental impacts, costs, public 
comments, nonproliferation issues, and programmatic factors, the 
Department has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative 
identified in Section 2.8 of the Final NI PEIS (Alternative 2, Option 
7). Domestic production of plutonium-238 will be reestablished to 
support U.S. space exploration. For this purpose, the Advanced Test 
Reactor (ATR) in Idaho and the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at the 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee will be used to 
irradiate neptunium-237 targets. Plutonium-238 production will not 
interfere with existing primary missions at ATR and HFIR. The 
Radiochemical Engineering Development Center (REDC) at ORNL will be 
used for fabricating targets and isolating plutonium-238 from the 
irradiated targets.
    The Department expects its current nuclear infrastructure to 
satisfy short-term requirements for isotopes needed in medicine, 
industry, and research, and nuclear energy research for civilian 
applications. If significantly larger amounts of isotopes are required 
in the future, others would need to respond to these requirements. To 
explore a potential option to address some future research 
infrastructure needs, DOE intends to work over the next two years to 
establish a conceptual design for an Advanced Accelerator Applications 
(AAA) facility, which could be modified to produce some proton-enriched 
isotopes. The new accelerator(s) (Alternative 3) and new research 
reactor (Alternative 4) described in the NI PEIS will not be 
constructed. The Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) in Washington will be 
permanently deactivated. If DOE proposes specific enhancements of 
existing facilities or deployment of the AAA facility, further NEPA 
review would be conducted.

ADDRESSES: The Final NI PEIS, including the NI PEIS Summary, and this 
ROD are available on the Department's National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) website at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/docs/docs.htm. The ROD is 
also available at web address http://www.nuclear.gov. Requests for 
copies of the NI PEIS, the NI PEIS Summary, or this ROD should be 
mailed to Colette E. Brown, Document Manager, Office of Space and 
Defense Power Systems (NE-50), Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and 
Technology, U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road, 
Germantown, MD 20874, Attention: NI PEIS. Requests may also be 
electronically mailed to Internet address [email protected] or 
faxed to Ms. Brown at 301-903-1510.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the nuclear 
infrastructure missions, alternatives, or environmental impacts, 
contact Colette E. Brown at the addresses given in the previous 
paragraph. For general information on the Department's NEPA process, 
please contact Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and 
Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; call 202-586-4600; or leave a 
message at the toll-free telephone number, 800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 5, 1998, the Department published a Notice of Intent (63 
FR 53398) to prepare an environmental impact statement concerning the 
production of plutonium-238 in support of U.S. space missions. 
Following the public scoping process, which was extended until January 
4, 1999, the Department began preparation of the Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Proposed Production of Plutonium-238 for Use in 
Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems for Future Space Missions 
(Plutonium-238 Production EIS). Restarting FFTF was dismissed as a 
reasonable alternative for that proposed EIS because it would not be 
cost effective to restart the reactor for the sole purpose of producing 
plutonium-238.
    On August 18, 1999, the Department announced that it would prepare 
the NI PEIS--a programmatic NEPA document that would evaluate the 
environmental impacts that could result from enhancement of the 
Department's nuclear infrastructure. Restart of FFTF was included as a 
reasonable alternative in the NI PEIS for several missions, including 
the production of plutonium-238. Preparation of the Plutonium-238 
Production EIS was terminated as a separate NEPA review and its scope 
was incorporated in the NI PEIS.

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    The Department's obligations under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
require it to operate and maintain nuclear facilities such as reactors, 
accelerators, and various nuclear support facilities. The shutdown of 
aging facilities coupled with projected increases in demand for nuclear 
services and products necessitated an assessment of the Department's 
nuclear infrastructure needs.
    Over the past 50 years, the use of isotopes in medicine and 
industry has increased markedly. Currently, over 12 million nuclear 
medical procedures are performed each year in the United States. Expert 
medical panels have projected significant increases in the use of 
nuclear diagnostic, therapeutic, and research medicines during the 
early decades of the twenty-first century. As discussed in the NI PEIS, 
Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1, an Expert Panel convened by the Department in 
1998 concluded that the growth in demand for diagnostic and therapeutic 
isotopes would likely exceed seven percent per year over the next 20 
years. The Panel also concluded that the cost and availability of 
medical isotopes would constrain progress in various areas of medical 
research. The Expert Panel's findings were adopted by the Nuclear 
Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC), which further concluded 
that the current domestic nuclear

[[Page 7878]]

infrastructure is not adequate to ensure a continued supply of medical 
isotopes in the face of projected increases in demand. Approximately 
one-half of the Department's current isotope production capability is 
being used. Projections of increased demands for medical isotopes 
indicate that the Department's production capability will be fully 
utilized within a decade or less in the absence of enhancements to the 
existing nuclear infrastructure.
    The Department and its predecessor agencies have supplied 
plutonium-238 for U.S. space programs for more than three decades. The 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) uses plutonium-238 
as a source of electric power and heat for deep space missions. Nuclear 
reactors and chemical processing facilities at the Department's 
Savannah River Site (SRS) historically produced plutonium-238 for the 
Nation's space programs. However, all nuclear reactors at SRS have been 
shut down. Chemical processing facilities in F-Canyon and H-Canyon at 
SRS are scheduled for shutdown following completion of their current 
mission to prepare Cold War legacy nuclear materials and some spent 
nuclear fuel for disposition. In 1992, the Department signed a five-
year contract to purchase up to 10 kilograms (22 pounds) of plutonium-
238 per year from Russia--not to exceed 40 kilograms (88 pounds) total. 
In 1997, a five-year contract extension was negotiated. The extension 
will expire in 2002. Thus far, approximately 9 kilograms (20 pounds) of 
plutonium-238 have been purchased from Russia under this contract. 
Plutonium-238 is purchased from Russia on an as-needed basis because it 
is costly to remove the decay products that result from an extended 
period of storage. As discussed in detail in Section 1.2.2 of the NI 
PEIS, updated mission guidance from NASA indicates that the U.S. 
inventory of plutonium-238 reserved for U.S. space missions is likely 
to be depleted by 2005. The Department must decide how to continue to 
meet NASA's need for plutonium-238 beyond that point.
    In November 1997, the President's Committee of Advisors on Science 
and Technology reported that restoring a viable nuclear energy option 
is important to the Nation's ability to meet its expanding energy 
requirements (See NI PEIS, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.3). The Committee 
recommended that the Department reinvigorate its nuclear energy 
research and development activities to address potential barriers to 
the expanded use of nuclear power. In response to this recommendation, 
the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative was started in fiscal year 1999, 
and the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program was started in fiscal 
year 2000. The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative sponsors research and 
development focused on the removal of barriers to the expanded use of 
nuclear power. Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization is a cost-shared 
program with private industry that sponsors research and development 
intended to ensure that current nuclear plants can continue to provide 
electric power up to and beyond their initial 40-year license period. 
In June 2000, the NERAC Subcommittee on Long-Term Planning for Nuclear 
Energy Research developed guidelines for research and development in 
the areas of materials research, nuclear fuel research, and advanced 
reactor development. One of the Department's objectives is to provide 
and maintain a nuclear infrastructure that supports civilian nuclear 
energy research and development.
    In summary, the Department's activities regarding medical isotope 
supplies, support of U.S. space missions, and research and development 
in the area of civilian nuclear technology will require an appropriate 
nuclear infrastructure. In reaching its decision concerning a nuclear 
infrastructure appropriate for the next 35 years, the Department 
assigned equal priority to all of these responsibilities.

NEPA Process

    On September 15, 1999, the Department published a Notice of Intent 
in the Federal Register (64 FR 50064) to prepare the NI PEIS. The 45-
day scoping period for the NI PEIS ended on October 31, 1999. Scoping 
meetings were held in locations central to potentially affected areas 
(Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Idaho Falls, Idaho; and Richland, Washington), 
as well as areas in which the alternatives would have little or no 
environmental impact, but in which there was public interest (Hood 
River, Oregon; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and Washington, 
D.C.).
    The Department received approximately 7,000 scoping comments. As a 
result of comments received during the scoping period, a new 
alternative (Permanently Deactivate FFTF with No New Missions) was 
added to the alternatives evaluated in the NI PEIS, the Fluorinel 
Dissolution Process Facility (FDPF) in Idaho was added as a processing 
facility for the processing of plutonium-238, and a commercial light 
water reactor at a generic site was added as a candidate irradiation 
facility for the production of plutonium-238. Other comments included 
requests for inclusion of information about cleanup and environmental 
contamination at Hanford, nonproliferation issues including the 
proposed import of German SNR-300 fuel, transition of FFTF stewardship 
after it is deactivated, the restart of FFTF and associated budget 
constraints, and the Tri Party Agreement at Hanford. This information 
was included in the Draft NI PEIS and/or the separate NI 
Nonproliferation Impact Assessment report.
    Availability of the Draft NI PEIS was announced in the Federal 
Register on July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46443). The public comment period 
extended through September 18, 2000. Seven public hearings were held 
during late August and early September 2000 at the same locations as 
the scoping meetings. Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality 
regulations (40 CFR 1505.1(e)), agencies are encouraged to make 
ancillary decision documents available to the public before a decision 
is made. The associated cost report and nonproliferation report were 
made available to the public on August 24, 2000, and September 8, 2000, 
respectively. The Department mailed these documents to approximately 
730 interested parties, and the reports were made available immediately 
upon release on the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology 
website (http://www.nuclear.gov) and in public reading rooms.
    Over 6,000 comments were received during the comment period for the 
Draft NI PEIS. While a wide variety of comments was received, the 
dominant concerns focused on the: (1) Purpose and need for enhancements 
to the Department's nuclear infrastructure; (2) impact of certain 
alternatives on the cleanup efforts at candidate sites and compliance 
with the existing cleanup agreements; (3) management and disposition of 
nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel resulting from implementation of 
the alternatives; (4) costs and cost benefits of the alternatives; (5) 
potential effects on nuclear weapons nonproliferation; (6) fairness and 
effectiveness of the public involvement and decision process; (7) 
impacts on human health and water quality; (8) safety of reactor 
operations; (9) use of plutonium-238 in space applications; and (10) 
restart or deactivation of the Fast Flux Text Facility (FFTF). Comments 
were considered by the Department and responses were included in Volume 
3 of the Final NI PEIS. The NI PEIS was revised in response to comments 
wherever appropriate. The Notice of Availability for the Final NI PEIS 
was

[[Page 7879]]

published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2000 (65 FR 78484).

II. Facility and Site Options

Candidate Irradiation Facilities

    Three nuclear reactors were included in the environmental 
evaluation as candidate irradiation facilities: ATR at Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL); HFIR at ORNL; and 
FFTF at the Hanford Site. Environmental impacts were also estimated for 
a generic CLWR, one or two new accelerators at an unspecified 
Departmental site, and a new research reactor at an unspecified 
Departmental site.
    ATR is a light-water-cooled 
and -moderated nuclear reactor with a design thermal power of 250 
megawatts. Special features of ATR include high neutron flux levels and 
the ability to vary power to fit different experiment needs in 
different test positions. ATR operates with highly enriched uranium 
fuel (uranium fuel containing more than 20 percent uranium-235). The 
primary mission at ATR is to support naval reactor research and 
development. The Department proposes to use ATR for isotope production 
and civilian nuclear energy research missions on a noninterference 
basis. The Department estimates that ATR alone could produce up to 5 
kilograms (11 pounds) of plutonium-238 per year and could be used in 
combination with any one of the candidate processing facilities for 
plutonium-238 production.
    HFIR is a light-water-cooled and -moderated reactor operated at a 
thermal power level of 85 megawatts. It is used for both isotope 
production and neutron research. Originally designed to operate at a 
full power level of 100 megawatts-thermal, it currently operates at a 
maximum authorized power level of 85 megawatts-thermal to extend the 
useful life of the reactor. The reactor operates with highly enriched 
uranium fuel. The primary mission at HFIR is neutron research for the 
Department's Office of Science. Civilian nuclear energy research and 
additional isotope production will be undertaken on a noninterference 
basis. To complement plutonium-238 production at ATR, HFIR could 
produce up to 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) per year.
    FFTF is a 400-megawatts-thermal, sodium-cooled nuclear test 
reactor. It was operated from April 1982 to December 1993. FFTF was 
used primarily to evaluate reactor fuels and different fuel assembly 
materials during its 10 years of operation. It also supported test 
programs for industry, nuclear energy (domestic and international), 
medical isotope applications and research, space nuclear power, and 
fusion research programs. FFTF was placed in standby condition in 1993 
because of a lack of economically viable missions. Reactor fuel has 
been removed. The Main Heat Transport System is being operated at 
approximately 200  deg.C (400  deg.F) to keep sodium coolant in the 
reactor liquefied and circulating. Restarting FFTF would require 
mechanical equipment upgrades and replacement of outdated control and 
computer systems. FFTF initially would have operated with mixed-oxide 
(uranium-plutonium) fuel, followed by operation with uranium fuel. Had 
FFTF been selected as an irradiation facility, production of medical 
isotopes and civilian nuclear technology research would have been the 
primary missions at FFTF.
    A CLWR was evaluated as an irradiation facility for plutonium-238 
production. No specific light water reactor was selected. Thus, typical 
characteristics of CLWRs were assumed for the environmental analysis. A 
typical pressurized water reactor core consists of 170 to 200 fuel 
assemblies arranged in the reactor vessel in an approximately 
cylindrical pattern. Most pressurized water reactors operating in the 
United States are licensed to operate at thermal power levels of 2,500 
to 3,500 megawatts for net station electric outputs of 800 to 1,200 
megawatts-electric. The primary mission of a CLWR is the production of 
electric power. Plutonium-238 production would have been conducted on a 
noninterference basis. Had a CLWR been selected for production of 
plutonium-238, site specific NEPA reviews would have been conducted 
prior to selection of a CLWR.
    The Department considered construction of one or two accelerators 
at an unspecified DOE site as candidate irradiation facilities. 
Environmental impacts that could have resulted from construction and 
operation of the accelerator(s) used preconceptual designs for low- and 
high-energy accelerators. The low-energy accelerator was designed to 
support medical and industrial isotope production as well as civilian 
nuclear energy research. The high-energy accelerator was designed to 
support plutonium-238 production and civilian nuclear energy research. 
The preconceptual designs are described in the NI PEIS. Had either or 
both accelerator(s) been selected for implementation, site-specific 
NEPA reviews would have been conducted prior to site selection and 
production of isotopes and civilian nuclear energy research would have 
been the primary missions at those facilities.
    The Department also considered construction of a new research 
reactor at an unspecified DOE site as a candidate irradiation facility. 
A preconceptual design was developed for a new research reactor that 
would: (1) Produce medical and industrial isotopes, (2) produce up to 5 
kilograms (11 pounds) of plutonium-238 per year, and (3) support 
civilian nuclear energy research and development. The new research 
reactor would have been fueled by low-enriched uranium (uranium fuel 
containing less than 20 percent uranium-235). This preconceptual design 
included the basic elements of the research reactor facility sufficient 
for the environmental analysis. Had a new research reactor been 
selected for implementation, site-specific NEPA reviews would have been 
conducted prior to site selection. Production of isotopes and civilian 
nuclear energy research would have been the primary missions at the new 
research reactor.

Candidate Target Fabrication and Postirradiation Processing Facilities

    Processing facilities at three Departmental sites were included in 
the environmental evaluation as candidate target fabrication and 
postirradiation processing facilities: REDC at ORNL; FDPF at INEEL; the 
Fuels and Materials Examination Facility (FMEF) at Hanford; and the 
Radiochemical Processing Laboratory (RPL)/Development Fabrication Test 
Laboratory (Building 306-E), also at Hanford. Environmental impacts 
were also estimated for a new generic support facility at an 
unspecified DOE site.
    REDC at ORNL is a companion facility to HFIR. REDC's two buildings 
house shielded hot cells and analytical laboratories. These hot cells 
and laboratories are used in the fabrication of fuel rods and targets 
for irradiation and to process irradiated rods and targets for the 
separation and purification of transuranic elements, process 
development, and product purification and packaging. Several 
alternatives and options (including the Preferred Alternative) included 
the use of ORNL's REDC Building 7930 for storage of neptunium-237 and 
fabrication and postirradiation processing of neptunium-237 targets.
    The REDC hot cell facilities to be used under the Preferred 
Alternative have not yet been used for any mission. Activities required 
for target fabrication will take place in shielded glove boxes. 
Mechanical operations involved in the final target fabrication present 
lesser hazards that may permit them to be

[[Page 7880]]

carried out in open boxes. Cell E will contain processing equipment to 
purify the separated plutonium-238 product, prepare the plutonium 
oxide, and transfer the oxide into shipping containers. Cell E will 
also contain vertical storage wells for dry storage of neptunium and 
other actinides. Cell D activities will include receipt of irradiated 
targets, as well as target dissolution, chemical separation of 
neptunium and plutonium from fission products, and partitioning and 
purification of neptunium. Cell D also contains process equipment to 
remove transuranic elements from the aqueous waste streams and 
vitrifying waste.
    FDPF is in the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center 
(INTEC), which is located northeast of the Central Facilities Area at 
INEEL and approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) southeast of ATR. FDPF 
was a candidate fabrication and postirradiation processing facility in 
several options under Alternatives 1 through 4. FDPF has no current 
mission. Historically, INTEC reprocessed spent nuclear fuel from U.S. 
Government reactors to recover reusable highly enriched uranium. After 
the Department announced in April 1992 that it would no longer 
reprocess spent fuel, reprocessing operations at INTEC ended.
    Two buildings at INTEC were candidate storage and processing sites 
for plutonium-238 production: Building CPP-651, the Unirradiated Fuel 
Storage Facility, and Building CPP-666, FDPF. Under this alternative, 
chemical separation would occur in the FDPF cell using small 
centrifugal contactors installed for that purpose. Neptunium-237 would 
have been stored in FDPF or Building CPP-651, which is located within 
100 meters (328 feet) of FDPF. There are 100 in-ground, concrete-
shielded storage well positions in this vault. Each storage well 
contains a rack that can be modified to house containers for neptunium-
237.
    Hanford's FMEF was a candidate facility for storage of neptunium-
237, fabrication of neptunium-237 targets, and processing of irradiated 
neptunium-237 targets for several options under Alternatives 1 through 
4. FMEF could have supported medical and industrial production mission 
and civilian nuclear energy research and development mission activities 
at the Hanford Site under Alternative 1. FMEF is west of FFTF in the 
400 Area of Hanford. It was built during the late 1970s and early 1980s 
as a major addition to the breeder reactor technology development 
program at Hanford. Although it has never been used, the facility was 
constructed to perform fuel fabrication and development and 
postirradiation examination of breeder reactor fuels.
    FMEF is currently being maintained in mission-ready condition. In 
1998, to reduce the cost of maintaining the facility, many systems were 
shut down and most hazardous materials were removed from the building. 
FMEF is uncontaminated because no nuclear materials have been 
introduced. Some critical systems remain in operation, e.g., the fire 
detection and protection systems. To avoid freezing of the fire 
protection water systems, limited heating and ventilation remains 
operational. Electric power and lighting remain available, and the 
freight elevator remains in service to support routine facility 
inspection and maintenance. The use of FMEF for neptunium-237 target 
material storage, target fabrication, and post-irradiation processing 
would have required construction of a new 76-meter (250-foot) stack.
    Two Hanford 300 Area facilities were considered for support of 
medical and industrial isotope target fabrication and post-irradiation 
processing: RPL and Building 306-E. RPL/306-E were candidate facilities 
to support medical and industrial isotope production and civilian 
nuclear energy research and development activities. RPL would have been 
the primary site for fabricating the radioactive targets (i.e., targets 
containing radium-226 or recycled materials from previous 
irradiations).
    Total space within RPL is 13,350 square meters (143,700 square 
feet), of which 4,140 square meters (44,500 square feet) are occupied 
by general chemistry laboratories. A recent space utilization survey of 
RPL indicated that 646 square meters (6,950 square feet), representing 
15.6 percent of the laboratory area, are presently unoccupied. All of 
the occupied and nearly all of the unoccupied laboratories are 
functional and equipped with standard utilities. Of the 79 functional 
fume hoods and 23 shielded glove boxes, 50 fume hoods and 15 glove 
boxes are available for additional work.
    Building 306-E was constructed in 1956 as part of the nuclear 
material production program at Hanford. It was used to develop the co-
extrusion process for N-Reactor fuel. Major upgrades and renovations 
were completed in the late 1960s and early 1970s to support the 
civilian reactor development program. These activities would not have 
impacted current missions at the facilities.
    A new generic support facility would have had the mission of 
preparing medical and industrial isotope targets for irradiation, 
processing exposed targets, and housing the materials research and 
development activities in association with Alternatives 3 and 4. Siting 
of the generic support facility for medical and industrial isotope 
production would have required that the facility be located in the same 
general vicinity (within 0.2 to 20 kilometers [0.07 to 12.4 miles]) as 
the new irradiation facility (accelerator or reactor). Collocation with 
the irradiation facility would have been needed to process irradiated 
target materials promptly after removal from the reactor/accelerator 
and to minimize transportation time. Although the facility could have 
been located within the irradiation facility security protection area, 
the lack of a defense mission and the lack of a fissile material 
presence in the generic support facility indicate that a high level of 
physical protection would not have been warranted.

III. Alternatives and Options

    The Department evaluated potential environmental impacts that could 
result from implementation of alternatives and options that support 
isotope production and civilian nuclear energy research. A No Action 
Alternative and five programmatic alternatives were assessed. Table 1 
summarizes the facilities associated with each alternative option.

No Action Alternative

    Under the No Action Alternative (maintain status quo), FFTF would 
have been maintained in standby status for 35 years. Ongoing operations 
at existing facilities would have continued. The Department would not 
establish a domestic plutonium-238 production capability, but would 
have continued to purchase Russian plutonium-238 to meet the long-term 
needs of future U.S. space missions. For the purposes of the 
environmental analysis, it was assumed that the purchase of plutonium-
238 from Russia would continue as needed to support U.S. space 
missions. The environmental analysis included transportation impacts 
that could result from the purchase of up to 175 kilograms (385.8 
pounds) of plutonium-238 from Russia. Any purchase of plutonium-238 
beyond that currently available in the United States through the 
existing contract would require additional NEPA review. The 
Department's medical and industrial isotope production and civilian 
nuclear energy research and development activities would have continued 
at the current operating levels. A consequence of a No Action decision 
would have

[[Page 7881]]

been the need to determine the future of the neptunium-237 stored at 
SRS. Therefore, the impacts of possible future transportation and 
storage of neptunium-237 were evaluated as part of the No Action 
Alternative.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 7882]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA01.000

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

[[Page 7883]]

    Four options were analyzed under the No Action Alternative. If the 
Department had decided not to reestablish domestic production of 
plutonium-238, the inventory of neptunium-237 would have had no 
programmatic value and Option 1 would have been selected. Under this 
option, neptunium-237 would have been stabilized in solution form at 
SRS. Had the Department decided to maintain the neptunium-237 inventory 
for future plutonium-238 production, the neptunium-237 oxide inventory 
would have been transported from SRS to one of three candidate sites 
for up to 35 years of storage for possible future use: Option 2, REDC 
at ORNL; Option 3, Building CPP-651 at INEEL; or Option 4, FMEF at 
Hanford. The Department's nuclear infrastructure would not have been 
expanded under the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 1--Restart FFTF

    Under Alternative 1, FFTF at Hanford would have been restarted and 
operated at a nominal 100 megawatts for 35 years. Production of 
isotopes and research in civilian nuclear energy would have been the 
primary missions at FFTF. Targets for medical and industrial isotope 
production would have been fabricated at one or more facilities at 
Hanford, irradiated at FFTF, and then returned to the fabrication 
facility for postirradiation processing. From there, the isotope 
products would have been sent to commercial pharmaceutical or 
industrial distributors.
    Under this alternative, neptunium-237 would have been transported 
from SRS to one of the three fabrication/postirradiation processing 
facilities shown in Table 1: ORNL (Options 1 and 4), INEEL (Options 2 
and 5), or Hanford (Options 3 and 6), where targets would have been 
fabricated as needed to support U.S. space missions. Following 
irradiation at FFTF, the irradiated targets would have been returned to 
the fabrication facility for postirradiation extraction of plutonium-
238. Plutonium-238 then would have been transported to Los Alamos 
National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico for use in heat and electric 
power sources.
    Under Alternative 1, raw materials, nonirradiated targets, 
irradiated targets, and processed materials would have been transported 
between the locations selected for raw target material acquisition, 
material storage, target fabrication, target irradiation, and 
postirradiation processing, as well as the final destination for the 
medical and industrial isotopes and the plutonium-238 product or 
various research and development test sites. The six options under this 
alternative are associated with the type of nuclear fuel which was to 
be used for FFTF operations and the specific facilities which were to 
be used for target fabrication and processing. The first three options 
(Options 1 through 3) would have involved operating FFTF with mixed 
oxide fuel for the first 21 years and uranium fuel for the remaining 14 
years. Options 4 through 6 would have involved operating FFTF with 
mixed oxide fuel for the first 6 years and uranium fuel for the 
remaining 29 years. Environmental impacts that will result from 
deactivation of FFTF at the end of its operating life are addressed 
under Alternative 5.

Alternative 2--Use Only Existing Operational Facilities

    Under Alternative 2, the Department will use existing operating 
reactors to produce plutonium-238 for future space missions. The 
production of medical and industrial isotopes and support for civilian 
nuclear energy research and development will continue at approximately 
current levels without expansion of the Department's nuclear 
infrastructure.
    Environmental impacts were estimated for three irradiation 
facilities: ATR (only) at INEEL (Options 1 through 3), a generic CLWR 
(Options 4 through 6), and ATR/HFIR at ORNL (Options 7 through 9). ATR, 
HFIR, and the CLWR would continue their current primary missions under 
all options of Alternative 2. Production of plutonium-238 will be 
conducted as a secondary mission on a noninterference basis. Under 
Alternative 2, Alternative 5 would also be selected and FFTF would be 
permanently deactivated.
    Neptunium-237 will be processed and transported from SRS to the 
fabrication facility, where it will be stored until fabrication. The NI 
PEIS evaluates environmental impacts that could result from target 
fabrication/postirradiation processing at one of three facilities at 
ORNL (the preferred facility), INEEL, or Hanford (see Table 1). The 
targets will be irradiated at ATR and HFIR. Environmental impacts that 
could result from using a CLWR for irradiation services are also 
included in the NI PEIS. After irradiation, neptunium-237 targets will 
be transported back to the fabricating facility for postirradiation 
processing.
    Under Alternative 2, nonirradiated targets, irradiated targets, and 
processed materials will be transported between the locations selected 
for storage, target fabrication, target irradiation, and 
postirradiation processing. In addition, the plutonium-238 product will 
be transported to LANL.
    If DOE proposes specific enhancements of existing facilities in 
order to implement Alternative 2, further NEPA review would be 
conducted.

Alternative 3--Construct New Accelerator(s)

    Under Alternative 3, one or two new accelerators would have been 
used for target irradiation. The new accelerator(s) would have been 
constructed at an existing DOE site(s). Production of isotopes 
including plutonium-238, and civilian nuclear energy research would 
have been the primary missions at the new accelerators.
    Neptunium-237 would have been transported from SRS to the 
fabrication facility, where it would have been stored until 
fabrication. Targets for plutonium-238 production would have been 
fabricated in one of the three alternative facilities at ORNL (Option 
1), INEEL (Option 2), or Hanford (Option 3). The targets would have 
been irradiated in a new high-energy accelerator and then transported 
back to the target fabrication facility for postirradiation processing.
    Target materials for medical and industrial isotope production 
would have been stored on site until fabricated into targets in a new 
support facility located at the same site as the low-energy 
accelerator. The targets would have been irradiated in the low-energy 
accelerator and returned to the new support facility for 
postirradiation processing. Because Alternative 3 was evaluated at a 
generic site, site selection was not evaluated as part of the NI PEIS 
and no credit was taken for any support infrastructure existing at the 
generic site. It was assumed that a new support facility would be 
required to support operation of the low-energy accelerator and its 
missions and the high-energy accelerator civilian nuclear energy 
research and development missions if both accelerators were located on 
the same site. While this approach bounds the environmental impact 
assessment for the implementation of Alternative 3, it overstates the 
impacts because the NI PEIS integrates the impacts associated with 
constructing new support facilities and infrastructure that may already 
be available at the existing site. Had Alternative 3 been selected for 
implementation, site-specific NEPA reviews would have been conducted 
prior to site selection.
    Under Alternative 3, nonirradiated targets, irradiated targets, and 
processed materials would have been transported between the locations 
selected for

[[Page 7884]]

storage, target fabrication, target irradiation, postirradiation 
processing, and the final destination of the plutonium-238. The 
environmental evaluation of Alternative 3 also included environmental 
effects resulting from decontamination and decommissioning of the 
accelerator(s) and the processing facility when the missions are over, 
as well as deactivation of FFTF at Hanford.

Alternative 4--Construct New Research Reactor

    Under Alternative 4, a new research reactor would have been used 
for target irradiation. The new research reactor would have been 
constructed at an existing site. Production of isotopes including 
plutonium-238, and civilian nuclear energy research would have been the 
primary missions at the new research reactor.
    Neptunium-237 would have been transported from SRS to the 
fabrication facilities where it would have been stored until 
fabrication. As shown in Table 1, targets for plutonium-238 production 
would have been fabricated at one of the three facilities at ORNL 
(Option 1), INEEL (Option 2), or Hanford (Option 3). The targets would 
have been irradiated in the new research reactor and transported back 
to the target fabrication facilities for postirradiation processing.
    Targets for medical and industrial isotope production would have 
been fabricated in a new support facility located at the same site as 
the new research reactor. Target materials would have been stored on 
site until fabrication. The targets would have been irradiated in the 
new research reactor and returned to the new support facility for 
postirradiation processing.
    Because Alternative 4 was evaluated at a generic DOE site, site 
selection was not evaluated as part of the NI PEIS and no credit was 
taken for any existing support infrastructure at the site. It was 
assumed that a new support facility would be required to support the 
new research reactor. While this approach bounds the environmental 
impact assessment for the implementation of Alternative 4, it 
overstates the impacts because the NI PEIS integrates the impacts 
associated with constructing new support facilities and infrastructure 
that may already be available at the existing site. If selected, this 
alternative would require site-specific NEPA reviews to be completed 
prior to site selection.
    Under Alternative 4, nonirradiated targets, irradiated targets, and 
processed materials would have been transported between the locations 
selected for storage, target fabrication, target irradiation, 
postirradiation processing, and the final destination of the plutonium-
238. The environmental evaluation of Alternative 4 also included 
environmental effects resulting from decontamination and 
decommissioning the research reactor and the processing facility when 
the missions are over, as well as deactivation of FFTF at Hanford.

Alternative 5--Permanently Deactivate FFTF with No New Missions

    Under Alternative 5, the Department would have permanently 
deactivated FFTF, with no new missions. Medical and industrial isotope 
production and civilian nuclear energy research and development 
missions at existing facilities would have continued at current levels. 
The Department's nuclear facilities infrastructure would not have been 
enhanced.

IV. Preferred Alternative

    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require an 
agency to identify its preferred alternative(s) in the final 
environmental impact statement (40 CFR 1502.14(e)). The preferred 
alternative is the alternative that the agency believes would fulfill 
its statutory mission, giving consideration to environmental, economic, 
technical, and other factors. Consequently, to identify a preferred 
alternative, the Department developed information on potential 
environmental impacts, costs, policy issues, and technical and schedule 
risks for the alternatives described in the NI PEIS. The NI PEIS 
provides information on environmental impacts. Cost, nonproliferation 
policy, and various technical reports have also been prepared and are 
available for public review in the Department's reading rooms.
    The Department's Preferred Alternative, as identified in the Final 
NI PEIS, was to apply its existing infrastructure to pursue missions 
outlined in the NI PEIS. Under this approach, the Department would 
consider opportunities to enhance its existing facilities to maximize 
the agency's ability to address future mission needs.
    Under the Preferred Alternative, the Department would reestablish 
domestic production of plutonium-238, as needed, to support U.S. space 
explorations. As discussed in NI PEIS, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.2, 
reestablishing a domestic plutonium-238 production capability would 
ensure that the United States has a long-term, reliable supply of this 
material. ATR in Idaho and HFIR in Tennessee would be used, as 
appropriate, to irradiate targets for this purpose without interfering 
with either reactor's primary mission. The Preferred Alternative 
includes fabricating and processing targets for the production of 
plutonium-238 at REDC at ORNL.
    The Preferred Alternative also addressed the future of FFTF. While 
the Department recognizes that this facility has unique capabilities, 
the Preferred Alternative noted the absence of commitments from other 
agencies, the private sector or other governments that would clearly 
justify restarting the facility, and accordingly proposed to 
permanently deactivate FFTF.
    In the absence of commitments that would justify the restart of 
FFTF or the construction of new facilities as proposed under 
Alternatives 3 and 4, the Department anticipates that its current 
infrastructure will serve the needs of the research and isotope 
communities for the next 5-10 years. In particular, DOE will consider 
opportunities to enhance its effort to provide medical and research 
isotopes. If significantly larger amounts of isotopes are required in 
the future, the Department would rely on the private sector to fulfill 
these needs.
    As a potential option for the longer-term future, the Department 
proposes to work over the next 2 years to establish a conceptual design 
for an Advanced Accelerator Applications (AAA) facility. Such a 
facility, which would be used to evaluate spent fuel transmutation, 
conduct various nuclear research missions, and ensure a viable backup 
technology for the production of tritium for national security 
purposes, was proposed and initial work funded in the fiscal year 2001 
Energy and Water Appropriation Act. If the Department proposes specific 
enhancements of existing facilities or development of the AAA facility, 
further NEPA review would be conducted.

V. Alternatives Considered But Dismissed

    In developing a range of reasonable alternatives, the Department 
examined the capabilities and available capacities of more than 40 
candidate irradiation facilities and 30 processing facilities at 
existing and planned nuclear research facilities (accelerators, 
reactors, and processing hot cells) that could potentially be used to 
support one or all of the isotope production and research missions.
    Irradiation capabilities of existing government, university, and 
commercial irradiation facilities were evaluated to determine whether 
they could adequately support the nuclear

[[Page 7885]]

infrastructure missions. Some of the irradiation facilities were 
dismissed from further evaluation because they lacked technical 
capability or available capacity. Reasons for dismissal included lack 
of availability, lack of steady-state neutrons, or insufficient power 
levels to support steady-state neutron production. Facilities were 
similarly dismissed if existing capacity was fully dedicated to 
existing missions, or if use of existing capacity to support the NI 
PEIS alternatives would impact existing missions.
    Numerous existing U.S. processing hot cell facilities possess the 
capabilities and capacity to support the nuclear infrastructure. Given 
this general availability, and to minimize transportation costs, only 
existing processing facilities that are collocated at candidate 
irradiation facility sites (i.e., ORNL, INEEL, and Hanford) were 
evaluated in the NI PEIS. Although multiple processing facilities exist 
at each of these sites, only the most suitable facilities in terms of 
capability, capacity, and availability were given further 
consideration.

VI. Summary of Environmental Impacts

    The environmental impact analysis in the NI PEIS addressed resource 
areas pertinent to the sites considered. Impacts were assessed for land 
resources, noise, air quality, water resources, geology and soils, 
ecological resources, cultural and paleontological resources, 
socioeconomics, environmental justice, and waste management. 
Radiological and nonradiological impacts to workers and the public that 
could result from construction, normal operations, and accidents were 
addressed. Environmental impacts of current, proposed, and reasonably 
foreseeable activities at candidate sites were included in cumulative 
impacts.
    The only resource area that could be significantly impacted by the 
implementation of any of the alternatives is water use associated with 
the construction of new facilities. Because no specific site was 
selected under Alternatives 3 and 4, potential impacts from 
construction could not be fully evaluated. In the absence of new 
construction, implementation of the alternatives would not 
significantly affect water use.
    The largest effect on air quality would also occur during 
construction activities. Under operating conditions, for all 
alternatives and options, air quality impacts would have been small in 
comparison with the most stringent standards.
    None of the alternatives would have had significant impact on 
regional economic areas or community services at Hanford, INEEL, and 
the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Socioeconomic impacts at the generic 
sites could not be evaluated in detail because areas potentially 
affected under Alternatives 3 and 4 could vary widely in demographic 
and economic composition.
    Maximum transportation impacts from normal operations for all 
alternatives and options were calculated to be 0.21 latent cancer 
fatalities for radiological risks and 0.008 fatalities for vehicle 
emissions. Maximum impacts from transportation accidents were 
calculated to be 0.53 latent cancer fatalities for radiological risks 
and 0.19 fatalities for vehicle collisions. All calculated risks were 
less than 1 fatality for the 35-year mission.
    None of the alternatives at existing candidate sites would have had 
a significant effect on land use, visual resources, noise, water 
quality, geology and soils, ecology, cultural resources, and 
environmental justice. Implementation of the alternatives at one or 
more generic sites could potentially have resulted in significant 
impacts in one or more of these resource areas.
    The maximum amount of waste generated by waste type under any 
alternative or option would have been 380 cubic meters of transuranic 
waste; 5,200 cubic meters of low-level waste; 430 cubic meters of mixed 
low-level waste; 3,300 cubic meters of hazardous waste; and 1.1  x  
10-7 cubic meters of nonhazardous waste. The maximum amount 
of spent nuclear fuel produced would have been 16 metric tons (heavy 
metal). Hazardous waste generated under any of the alternatives or 
combination of alternatives could have been managed under the 
Department's existing waste management infrastructure. The 
environmental evaluation provided in the NI PEIS assumed that 
transuranic waste results from processing irradiated targets. The 
Department will consider whether the waste that results from processing 
irradiated neptunium-237 targets should be classified as high-level or 
transuranic waste. Regardless of the classification, the physical 
characteristics of the waste generated are the same and waste 
management activities will be the same.
    The maximum calculated radiological risk to the public from normal 
facility operations for any alternative or option was 0.0039 latent 
cancer fatalities. The maximum radiological risk to the public from 
accidents was calculated at 0.54 latent cancer fatalities. The maximum 
cancer risk from hazardous chemicals under normal operations was 
calculated to be 2.6  x  10-7 and the maximum hazard index 
was estimated to be 0.0064. All risks were found to be small and no 
latent cancer fatalities would be expected to result from 
implementation of the alternatives at any candidate site.

VII. The Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    Environmental impacts, including human health and safety, 
transportation, socioeconomics, and environmental justice, were 
estimated to be small for all of the alternatives and did not provide a 
reasonable basis for discriminating among alternatives. The No Action 
Alternative and Alternative 5 were found to have the least 
environmental impact, but neither of these alternatives would have 
satisfied the Department's missions. Depending on the selected site, 
new construction could involve previously undisturbed land with a 
potential direct loss of wetlands and impacts on cultural and 
paleontological resources, local employment and regional economic 
conditions, and air quality.

VIII. Other Considerations

Public Input

    Approximately 3,500 communications, some with multiple comments, on 
the Draft NI PEIS were received via U.S. mail, e-mail, fax, and 
telephone. During the 52-day comment period, DOE held seven hearings to 
discuss the proposed action and to receive oral and written comments on 
the Draft NI PEIS. These hearings were held at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; 
Idaho Falls, Idaho; Hood River, Oregon; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, 
Washington; Richland, Washington; and Arlington, Virginia. These 
comments addressed a variety of topics and provided a wide range of 
views. The general focus of these communications was: (1) Support for 
deactivation of FFTF; (2) support for restarting FFTF; (3) concerns 
that a compelling case for the purpose and need was lacking; (4) 
concerns that restarting FFTF would hinder Hanford cleanup efforts and 
would be a violation of the Hanford Tri-Party Agreement; and (5) 
perceptions that production of plutonium-238 would violate U.S. 
nonproliferation policies. Volume 3 of the NI PEIS provides the 
Department's responses to these comments. Changes to the Draft NI PEIS 
that resulted from comments received from the public are discussed in 
Section 1.8 of the Final NI PEIS.

[[Page 7886]]

Costs

    The costs of implementing each of the alternatives identified in 
the NI PEIS are analyzed in the Department's cost study, Cost Report 
for the Alternatives Presented in the Draft Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy 
Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United 
States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility, dated August 
2000. Table 2 presents the range of costs for each of the NI PEIS 
alternatives. The range of costs for a specific alternative reflects 
cost differences between options. The FFTF restart implementation costs 
were assessed with and without the cost for permanently deactivating 
FFTF.

Nonproliferation Impacts

    The Department's Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation 
completed an assessment of the nuclear weapons nonproliferation impacts 
for each of the alternatives. Results of this assessment are provided 
in a report dated September 2000, Nuclear Infrastructure 
Nonproliferation Impact Assessment for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian 
Nuclear Energy Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions 
in the United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility 
(DOE/NE-0119). This assessment showed that none of the alternatives was 
unacceptable from a nonproliferation point of view. Some of the 
alternatives and options exhibit a more favorable nonproliferation 
posture than others. The No Action Alternative and other alternative 
options that incorporate neptunium-237 and plutonium-238 processing at 
FDPF raised nonproliferation concerns related to supporting negotiation 
of a verifiable Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) and the potential 
for international monitoring. FDPF is currently excluded from 
international monitoring for reasons of national security. Since it is 
not known whether a Russian facility would be made available for 
international monitoring, as a result of past and ongoing national 
security programs at the facility, there is significant uncertainty as 
to whether international monitoring would be permitted in a Russian Pu-
238 processing facility. In addition, the continued production of fresh 
and recycled neptunium in the Russian nuclear program raises a 
significant nonproliferation concern.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA01.001

IX. Comments on the Final NI PEIS

    The Department received comments from about 130 individuals and/or 
organizations after publication of the Final NI PEIS. Many of the 
commentors opposed the selection of the Preferred Alternative.
    Approximately 50 comments have been received that support the 
restart of FFTF. These comments supported one or more missions, 
including the production of medical isotopes and plutonium-238; stated 
that deactivation of FFTF would take money away from Hanford's cleanup 
mission; stated that the talented resource pool of personnel at Hanford 
would be drained if FFTF were shut down; requested reconsideration of 
permanent shutdown; protested the Preferred Alternative in favor of 
FFTF restart; requested deferring the shutdown decision until the 
incoming administration could consider it; and stated that the 
selection of the Preferred Alternative was purely a political decision.
    Several members of the Washington Congressional delegation wrote to 
the Secretary suggesting that the Department had not given industry a 
clear opportunity to propose use of the FFTF and advocated a formal 
solicitation process before action was taken to deactivate the reactor. 
Other comments that expressed opposition to, or concerns about FFTF 
activation included the following:
     Letters from national cancer patient organizations 
(National Association of Cancer Patients and the Children's Cancer 
Committee) appealing the decision to deactivate FFTF.
     A letter from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission stating 
Japanese concerns about the loss of FFTF.
     A letter from NASA stating its interest in DOE maintaining 
the capability to develop space reactor technology.
     A letter from DuPont stating its interest in FFTF 
operation to produce medical isotopes.
     A letter from a law firm to the Secretary on behalf of 
Benton County, Washington urging stating the Department to prepare a 
supplemental PEIS prior to issuance of the Record for Decision.
    About 20 comments were received that supported the permanent 
deactivation of FFTF, stating that it was the right decision for 
economic, safety, and environmental reasons.

[[Page 7887]]

    Other comments received on the Final NI PEIS include the following:
     One commentor stated that the Final NI PEIS was biased 
toward the accelerator alternative (as addressed in the Preferred 
Alternative).
     One commentor stated that the Department did not request 
the commitments that would justify restart of FFTF or construction of 
new facilities that were addressed in the Preferred Alternative.
     One commentor stated that the production of plutonium-238 
was not consistent with United States and international policy 
concerning nonproliferation.
     Mr. Tom Clements of the Nuclear Control Institute reported 
that his letter of September 18, 2000 was not included in the NI PEIS 
Comment Response Document, Volume 3. The Department regrets this 
oversight and provided Mr. Clements written responses to his comments 
in a letter dated January 5, 2001. Both Mr. Clements' letter and the 
Department's response were considered in the preparation of this Record 
of Decision.
    The Department considered these comments during the preparation of 
the Record of Decision. The Department believes that the NI PEIS is 
adequate for this decision and that no supplement is necessary. The 
Department recognizes that significant uncertainties remain regarding 
the future of research and isotope production activities that could 
justify operation of the FFTF. However, the Department believes that 
its current infrastructure will serve the needs of the research and 
isotope communities for the next 5 to 10 years and that opportunities 
to enhance its existing facilities are available. Although the 
Department did weigh comments received on the Final PEIS, it does not 
view these as being significantly different than those received on the 
Draft PEIS and therefore did not change its views as described in the 
Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS.

X. Decision

    The Department has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative 
identified in Section 2.8 of the Final NI PEIS (Alternative 2, Option 
7) and if required, part of the No Action Alternative that includes 
purchasing plutonium-238 from Russia. While it is clear from the 
analysis in the NI PEIS that FFTF has unique capabilities and could 
accomplish many of the irradiation missions of the Department, it is 
also clear that the Department would need to make a long-term 
commitment to its operation. The Department has not received 
commitments to support these costs or mitigate the costs of building 
new facilities. Given that existing facilities can meet DOE's near-term 
needs for isotope production and research, the Department believes that 
it should invest its funds in enhancing its existing infrastructure and 
exploring the potential of a new Advanced Accelerator Applications 
facility as a long-term option to meet U.S. research needs. It is for 
these reasons that DOE has chosen to proceed with the Preferred 
Alternative.
    Domestic production of plutonium-238 will be reestablished to 
support U.S. space exploration. The Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) in 
Idaho and the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) in Tennessee will be 
used to irradiate neptunium-237 targets for the production of 
plutonium-238. Plutonium-238 production can be accomplished without 
interfering with the existing primary missions at ATR and HFIR. The 
Radiochemical Engineering Development Center (REDC) in Tennessee will 
be used for fabricating targets and processing irradiated targets to 
recover plutonium-238. These existing operating facilities were 
selected because of the Department's confidence in the facilities' cost 
estimates, technical capabilities, and consistency with existing onsite 
target irradiation and processing activities. Three irradiation 
facilities were evaluated for Alternative 2. CWLR options were not 
selected because of uncertainties in the target design, development and 
fabrication. The design and fabrication technology of neptunium-237 
targets for irradiation in ATR and HFIR is much more mature. While ATR 
alone could meet the plutonium-238 production requirements, the 
Department selected the HFIR and ATR irradiation option because it 
offers additional diversity and flexibility in meeting the production 
goals and reducing potential impacts on future HFIR and ATR missions. 
Three processing facilities were evaluated for Alternative 2. REDC was 
selected as the preferred processing facility because of the facility's 
experience base (30 years of target fabrication and processing 
experience); current technical staff knowledge base, experience, and 
testing in support of DOE-funded plutonium-238 production studies and 
analyses; and the Department's confidence in the facility modification 
requirements and operating cost estimates. If the Department's existing 
inventory of plutonium-238 is insufficient to meet near-term space 
mission requirements, then the Department will pursue purchasing 
plutonium-238 from Russia while reestablishing domestic production 
capabilities.
    The Department anticipates that its current infrastructure will 
serve the needs of the research and isotope communities for the next 5 
to 10 years. The Department will continue to evaluate the medical and 
research isotope needs and will propose appropriate actions to meet 
these needs, as necessary. If significantly larger amounts of isotopes 
are required in the future, others would need to respond to these 
requirements.
    To explore a potential option to address some future research 
infrastructure needs, the Department intends to work over the next two 
years to establish a conceptual design for an Advanced Accelerator 
Applications (AAA) facility. Such a facility was proposed and initial 
work funded in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations 
Act. This facility would be used to evaluate spent nuclear fuel 
transmutation, conduct various nuclear research missions, and ensure a 
viable backup technology for the production of tritium for national 
security purposes. If the Department proposes specific enhancements of 
existing facilities or deployment of an AAA facility, further NEPA 
review will be conducted.

XI. Mitigation

    As discussed in the NI PEIS, implementation of any of the 
alternatives would have had small environmental impacts and no 
mitigation actions specific to the implementation of the alternatives 
were identified. The Department's policy is to maintain exposure of 
workers and the public to radiological and nonradiological emissions to 
levels that are as low as is reasonably achievable. The Department has 
adopted stringent controls for minimizing occupational and public 
exposure to radiological and nonradiological emissions. These measures 
will avoid, reduce, or eliminate adverse or potentially adverse impacts 
from activities undertaken as a result of this decision. In 
implementing this decision, the Department will use all practicable 
means to avoid or minimize environmental harm. In addition, the 
Department's policy is to minimize waste generation.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., this 19th day of January 2001.
Bill Richardson,
Secretary of Energy.
[FR Doc. 01-2271 Filed 1-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P