Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 88 / Friday, May 5, 2000 / Notices 26259

A meeting of the ITAC–R will be held

Thursday, May 11, 2000, in room 1912,

at the Department of State. The purpose

of the meeting is to provide information

and obtain advice, as appropriate,

concerning the World

Radiocommunication Conference

underway May 8–June 2, 2000, in

Istanbul, Turkey. The department

apologizes for such short notice

necessitated by changes in the

chairman’s schedule.

Members of the general public may

attend these meetings. Entrance to the

Department of State is controlled;

people intending to attend any of the

ITAC. Meetings should send a fax to

(202) 647–7407 not later than 24 hours

before the meeting. This fax should

display the name of the meeting and

date of meeting, your name, social

security number, date of birth, and

organizational affiliation. One of the

following valid photo identifications

will be required for admission: U.S.

driver’s license, passport, U.S.

Government identification card. Enter

from the C street lobby; in view of

escorting requirements, non-government

attendees should plan to arrive not less

than 15 minutes before the meeting

begins.

Dated: May 2, 2000.

Brian K. Ramsay,

Telecommunications Officer, Office of

Multilateral Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

[FR Doc. 00–11408 Filed 5–3–00; 2:45 pm]

BILLING CODE 4710–45–P

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Production of Tritium for the United

States Department of Energy, Rhea

and Hamilton Counties, TN

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority

(TVA).

ACTION: Issuance of Record of Decision

and Adoption of Final Environmental

Impact Statement for the Production of

Tritium in a Commercial Light Water

Reactor (CLWR) prepared by the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE).

SUMMARY: This Record of Decision

(ROD) is provided in accordance with

the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) regulations found at 40 CFR parts

1500 to 1508 and TVA procedures

implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act.

TVA has decided to enter into an

interagency agreement with DOE under

The Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535) to

provide irradiation services for

producing tritium in TVA light water

reactors. These reactors are Watts Bar

Nuclear Plant Unit 1, Rhea County,

Tennessee and Sequoyah Nuclear Plant

Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County,

Tennessee. The TVA Board of Directors

passed a resolution approving the

interagency agreement on December 15,

1999.

The environmental impacts of

producing tritium in these reactors as

well as in TVA’s Bellefonte Nuclear

Plant Units 1 and 2, Jackson County,

Alabama were assessed in a 1999 Final

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

for the Production of Tritium in a

Commercial Light Water Reactor (DOE/

EIS–0288) prepared by DOE. TVA was

a cooperating agency in the preparation

of this EIS. Under 40 CFR 1506.3(c) of

the CEQ regulations, TVA has

independently reviewed the EIS

prepared by DOE and found it to be

adequate and with this notice is

adopting the EIS, including the

preferred alternative.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg

Askew, P.E., Senior NEPA Specialist,

Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West

Summit Hill Drive, mail stop WT 8C,

Knoxville, Tennessee, 37902; telephone

865–632–6418; or e-mail

gaskew@tva.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

DOE’s Mission and the Nation’s Tritium

Need

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

is responsible for supplying nuclear

materials for national security needs

and ensuring that the nuclear weapons

stockpile remains safe and reliable.

Tritium, a radioactive isotope of

hydrogen, is an essential component of

every weapon in the current and

projected U.S. nuclear weapons

stockpile. Unlike other nuclear

materials used in nuclear weapons,

tritium decays at a rate of 5.5 percent

per year. Accordingly, as long as the

Nation relies on a nuclear deterrent, the

tritium in each nuclear weapon must be

replenished periodically. At present, the

U.S. nuclear weapons complex does not

have the capability to produce the

amounts of tritium that will be required

to support the Nation’s current and

future nuclear weapons stockpile.

In recent years, international arms

control agreements have caused the U.S.

nuclear weapons stockpile to be

reduced in size. Reducing the stockpile

has allowed DOE to recycle the tritium

removed from dismantled weapons for

use in supporting the remaining

stockpile. However, due to the decay of

tritium, the current inventory of tritium

will not meet national security

requirements past approximately 2005.

Therefore, the most recent Presidential

direction, contained in the 1996 Nuclear

Weapons Stockpile Plan and an

accompanying Presidential Decision

Directive, mandates that new tritium be

available by approximately 2005.

In December 1995, DOE issued a

Record of Decision (ROD) (60 FR 63878)

for the Final Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement for

Tritium Supply and Recycling (DOE/

EIS–0161). In this ROD, DOE decided to

pursue a dual-track approach on the

most promising tritium-supply

alternatives: (1) to initiate 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 for tritium

production. Under the dual-track

approach described in the December

1995 ROD issued by DOE, the agency

was to select within 3 years one of these

two technologies as the primary source

of tritium.

Production of Tritium in a Commercial

Light Water Reactor

The production of tritium in a CLWR

is technically straightforward and

requires no elaborate, complex

engineering development and testing

program. All the Nation’s supply of

tritium has been produced in reactors.

Most existing commercial pressurized

water reactors utilize 12-foot-long rods

containing an isotope of boron (boron10) in ceramic form. These rods are

sometimes called burnable absorber

rods. The rods are inserted in the reactor

fuel assemblies to absorb excess

neutrons produced by the uranium fuel

in the fission process for the purpose of

controlling power in the core at the

beginning of an operating cycle.

DOE’s tritium program has developed

another type of burnable absorber rod in

which neutrons are absorbed by a

lithium aluminate ceramic rather than

boron ceramic. While the two types of

rods function in a very similar manner

to absorb excess neutrons in the reactor

core, there is one notable difference:

When neutrons strike the lithium

aluminate ceramic material in a tritium

producing burnable absorber rod

(TPBAR), tritium is produced. This

tritium is captured almost

instantaneously in a solid zirconium

material in the rod, called a ‘‘getter.’’

The solid material that captures the

tritium as it is produced in the rod is so

effective that the rod will have to be

heated in a vacuum at much higher

temperatures than normally occur in the

operation of a light water reactor to

26260 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 88 / Friday, May 5, 2000 / Notices

1Because both TVA and DOE are Federal

agencies, an interagency agreement may be reached

via the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535). The

Economy Act is a Federal law that allows two

government agencies to enter into an interagency

agreement similar to the contractual agreement that

a Federal agency would enter with a non-Federal

party through the competitive procurement process.

The Federal procurement process for the CLWR

program explicitly allows for an interagency

agreement via the Economy Act.

extract the tritium for eventual use in

the nuclear weapons stockpile.

These TPBARs would be placed in the

same locations in the reactor core as the

standard burnable absorber rods. There

is no fissile material (uranium or

plutonium) in the TPBARs. Depending

upon tritium needs, up to as many as

2,400 TPBARs could be placed in a

CLWR for irradiation.

TVA’s National Defense Role

TVA has a history of supporting

national defense programs. The

preamble to the TVA Act of 1933

identifies national defense as one of the

purposes for its enactment. Further, the

TVA Act in Sections 15(h) and 31

declares that the Act should be liberally

construed to aid TVA in discharging its

responsibilities for the advancement of

national defense and other statutory

purposes. In compliance with that

Congressional mandate, TVA has

supported the Nation’s defense efforts

on numerous occasions.

TVA constructed hydroelectric plants

in record time to supply electric power

to key defense industries during World

War II including aluminum production

and Manhattan Project activities at Oak

Ridge, Tennessee. TVA produced

phosphorus and ammonium nitrate for

explosives and munitions during World

War II and the Korean conflict. From

1952 to 1957, TVA, under an agreement

with the Department of the Army,

operated and maintained the Phosphate

Development Works (PDW) complex at

which various phosphorus based

chemical agents were produced. From

1985 to 1988, under a contract with the

Department of Defense, the PDW was

refurbished to process and purify the

Department of Defense’s remaining

stock of methyl phosphonic dichloride,

a chemical agent component. TVA

continues to support defense missions

today with the cleanup of chemical and

munitions production and storage sites

as well as stabilization or disposal of

surplus chemical weapons stockpiles.

The Procurement Process

The DOE issued a request for proposal

RFP DE-RP02–97DP00414 on June 3,

1997 to all nuclear utilities to obtain a

fixed price bid for irradiation services

with an option to lease or purchase a

facility, if necessary, in one or more

commercial light water reactors. TVA

responded to the RFP on September 15,

1997 with 2 offers:

(1) An Economy Act Proposal 1 for

completion of one unit at the Bellefonte

Nuclear Plant with Watts Bar Nuclear

Plant Unit 1 as a backup facility. This

proposal is referred to as the Bellefonte

Revenue Sharing Offer.

(2) A commercial proposal responsive

to the RFP to provide irradiation

services using Watts Bar Unit 1. This

proposal is referred to as the Watts Bar

Irradiation Services Offer.

On November 16, 1998, DOE

requested TVA to revise and resubmit a

stand alone proposal for the purchase of

irradiation services from TVA’s

operating plants at Watts Bar and

Sequoyah. On December 8, 1998, TVA

submitted a revised Watts Bar Nuclear

Plant/Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Services

Offer as a commercial proposal for

irradiation services using Watts Bar Unit

1 and one unit at Sequoyah for backup

and surge production capacity.

On December 22, 1998, Energy

Secretary Bill Richardson announced

that tritium production in one or more

CLWRs would be the primary tritium

supply technology and that the

accelerator would be developed, but not

constructed, as a backup to CLWR

tritium production. Secretary

Richardson further stated that the Watts

Bar and Sequoyah reactors had been

designated as the preferred alternative

for CLWR tritium production. At the

same time, Secretary Richardson also

requested that TVA negotiate an

interagency agreement under the

Economy Act for irradiation services

using Watts Bar Unit 1 and one unit at

Sequoyah.

Alternatives Considered

TVA submitted the only responsive

proposal to DOE’s RFP as part of the

procurement process described above.

As a result, the following five TVA

reactors were the only reactors

considered in developing alternatives.

• Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1, Rhea

County, Tennessee

• Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Units 1 and

2, Hamilton County, Tennessee, and

• Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 1 and

2, Jackson County, Alabama.

One or more of these reactors could be

used to produce the tritium necessary to

meet national security requirements.

Therefore, scenarios comprising various

combinations of the five TVA reactors

were considered reasonable alternatives

the impacts of which were addressed in

the EIS. The transportation of irradiated

TPBARs from the reactor to the DOE

Savannah River Site for processing is

also a part of each alternative.

TVA’s No Action alternative to the

use of CLWRs for tritium production is

the continued operation of Watts Bar

Unit 1 and Sequoyah Units 1 and 2 and

the deferral of construction activities

necessary for completion of Bellefonte

units 1 and 2 as nuclear units.

Preferences Among Alternatives

DOE’s considerations included a

desire for low capital cost (low first

cost). Also, there is uncertainty in DOE’s

long-term tritium production

requirement with pending ratification of

the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty

(START II) by Russia and potential

future treaty negotiations. These factors

favored selection of a flexible approach

not requiring an immediate major

commitment of resources by DOE such

as would be required for completion of

Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Unit 1.

Therefore, DOE’s preferred alternative

was the combination of existing reactors

at Watts Bar and Sequoyah Nuclear

Plants.

Environmental and Other

Considerations of the Decision

Environmental Considerations

The EIS considered two

environmentally-distinct sets of

alternatives: (1) Alternatives involving

the use of only existing operating

reactors at Watts Bar and Sequoyah

Nuclear Plants, and (2) alternatives that

included the completion and startup of

the unfinished Bellefonte Nuclear Plant

Unit 1 or Units 1 and 2.

Described below are the relative

differences in environmental impacts

between tritium production in operating

CLWRs (Watts Bar Unit 1 and Sequoyah

Units 1 and 2 are used in the analysis)

and an incomplete CLWR (Bellefonte

Unit 1). For an incomplete CLWR, the

environmental analysis attributes all of

the impacts from completing

construction and operating the plant to

the tritium production mission.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 88 / Friday, May 5, 2000 / Notices 26261

approximately 9,000 total jobs would

have a significant positive impact on the

economic area surrounding the

incomplete reactor. By contrast, use of

an existing CLWR would have no

socioeconomic impacts. For all

alternatives, the environmental impacts

associated with construction are

considered small.

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 could cause additional

impacts in the following resources:

spent fuel generation; human health

(normal operations and accidents); lowlevel 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.

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 coalfired 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 is not significant enough to

change the plant’s existing visual

resource classification.

Spent Fuel

The operating reactors considered

here each contain 193 fuel assemblies.

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 zero (0) to 60

spent fuel assemblies per cycle

depending on the number of TPBARs

loaded. The environmental impacts

associated with long-term, on-site, drycask storage of spent fuel are not

significant. For an incomplete CLWR,

approximately 72 spent fuel assemblies

would be generated during reactor

operations without tritium production.

Increases in spent fuel could range from

zero (0) to approximately 69 additional

spent fuel assemblies depending on the

number of TPBARs loaded. In this

regard, it is DOE’s intention to minimize

the generation of additional spent fuel

by limiting the number of TPBARs

inserted in a single reactor. Thus,

operation of a newly completed reactor

would generate the most spent fuel; by

contrast, use of currently operating

reactors could lead to a limited

incremental increase in 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.

Radiological impacts for normal

operations are considered small for all

alternatives. Use of an operating CLWR

would have the smallest impact to

workers.

Human Health (Accidents)

The CLWR EIS provides a detailed

evaluation of impacts from accidents on

a site-specific basis for the CLWR

reactor alternatives. 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 480

million years. At the incomplete reactor

site, this risk would be approximately 1

in 1.3 billion years. For beyond designbasis 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 7,100 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 1 latent cancer

fatalities per 5,500 years from a beyond

design-basis accident. The risks

associated with accidents are small for

all the CLWR tritium production

alternatives.

Low-Level Radioactive Wastes

Low level waste (LLW) generation at

the operating reactors could increase by

0.43 cubic meters annually as a result of

tritium production. TVA may store this

LLW onsite for the life of the plant. The

newly completed reactor would

generate approximately 40 cubic meters

of LLW annually which may also be

stored onsite for the life of the plant.

Although all of the waste generation

impacts are acceptable, the use of

currently operating reactors would

generate the smallest amount of lowlevel 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

26262 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 88 / Friday, May 5, 2000 / Notices

total jobs would have a positive impact

on the economic area surrounding the

reactor site. Operation of a newly

completed reactor 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 Tritium Extraction

Facility (TEF) at the Savannah River

Site (SRS). There would be up to

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. All

the transportation impacts are

negligible.

No environmental commitments or

mitigation were identified for the

preferred alternative. A substantial

radiological monitoring program for

public exposure and all environmental

media (air, water and land) is an

established component of existing

operations at the Watts Bar and

Sequoyah Nuclear Plants. This existing

program will identify any increases in

radiological releases and impacts that

may result from tritium production.

Other Considerations

TVA’s Support of National Defense

TVA’s decision to produce the

Nation’s tritium on an ‘‘at cost’’ basis

under an Economy Act agreement

reflects TVA’s continuing willingness to

support the national defense. TVA’s

historic and contemporary defense roles

are described above under TVA’s

National Defense Role. Both alternatives

would further TVA’s commitment to

national defense by producing the

requisite quantities of tritium.

Regulatory and Licensing Issues

The Bellefonte alternatives would

have to be licensed as a new nuclear

power plant. The plant’s initial NRC

operating license would also permit

tritium production. Since the process is

likely to take 5 years, the Bellefonte

alternative has the potential to impact

the project schedule but would not

affect the national security because

initial tritium production could begin

with the Watts Bar reactor.

For the alternatives using existing

CLWRs, NRC would have to amend the

operating licenses of the Watts Bar and

Sequoyah reactors to permit tritium

production. TVA 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.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The alternatives involving the

completion and operation of one or both

of the Bellefonte units would cause

greater environmental impacts than the

alternatives using existing operating

reactors at Watts Bar and Sequoyah.

This greater impact of alternatives using

the Bellefonte reactors would result

from their construction and operation as

nuclear units which would be made

possible by their concurrent use for

tritium production. Based on these

additional impacts that would be caused

by completing and operating the

Bellefonte units, TVA considers the use

of the Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors

for tritium production as the

environmentally preferable alternative.

Dated: April 24, 2000.

John A. Scalice,

Chief Nuclear Officer and Executive Vice

President.

[FR Doc. 00–11222 Filed 5–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8120–08–U

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Report on Trade Expansion Priorities

Pursuant to Executive Order 13116

(‘‘SUPER 301’’)

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The United States Trade

Representative (USTR) is providing

notice that it submitted the report on

U.S. trade expansion priorities

published herein to the Committee on

Finance of the United States Senate and

Committee on Ways and Means of the

United States House of Representatives

pursuant to the provisions (commonly

referred to as ‘‘Super 301’’) set forth in

Executive Order No. 13116 of March 31,

1999.

DATES: The report was submitted on

May 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Demetrios Marantis, Associate General

Counsel, Office of the U.S. Trade

Representative, 600 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20508, 202–395–9626.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of

the USTR report is as follows.

Identification of Trade Expansion

Priorities Pursuant to Executive Order

13116 April 30, 2000

The United States Trade

Representative (USTR) submits to

Congress this year’s ‘‘Super 301’’ report

pursuant to Executive Order 13116 of

March 31, 1999. The Executive Order

directs the USTR to review U.S. trade

expansion priorities and identify

priority foreign country practices, the

elimination of which is likely to have

the most significant potential to increase

United States exports, either directly or

through the establishment of a

beneficial precedent. This report builds

on the 2000 National Trade Estimate

(NTE) Report on Foreign Trade Barriers

(released on March 31, 2000) and

complements the ‘‘Special 301’’

(intellectual property rights) and ‘‘Title

VII’’ (government procurement) reports.

The USTR prepared this report in

close consultation with other U.S.

Government agencies. After reviewing

the 2000 Trade Policy Agenda, the 2000

NTE Report, public comments

submitted to USTR, and information

received from U.S. Embassies abroad,

these agencies have identified the

Administration’s top U.S. trade

expansion priorities for 2000. USTR has

also determined that a number of

countries have failed to fully implement

certain multilateral commitments and,

accordingly, has decided to pursue

enforcement action in the World Trade

Organization (WTO). Finally, although

USTR is not identifying any ‘‘priority

foreign country practice’’ in this Report,

the Administration has focused on a

number of practices which may warrant

future enforcement action.

I. Trade Expansion Priorities for 2000

Over the past eight years, this

Administration has promoted a strong

trade policy premised on open markets

and the rule of law. The

Administration’s trade policy

achievements have contributed to strong

economic growth, rising living

standards, increased investment, and

industrial growth. Looking forward,

further expansion of trade will remain

crucial to continued growth and

technological progress. In this regard,

USTR identifies below its top trade

expansion priorities for 2000.

A. Complete China’s Accession to the

WTO

This year’s top trade expansion

priority is to complete China’s accession

to the WTO and secure approval of

permanent Normal Trade Relations

(NTR) status for China. The economic

liberalization and opening to the world