63878 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision: Tritium Supply

and Recycling Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision: Selection of

Tritium Supply Technology and Siting

of Tritium Supply and Recycling

Facilities.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE) is issuing this Record of Decision

regarding DOE’s proposal for Tritium

Supply and Recycling Facilities. The

Department is making three

simultaneous decisions. First, the

Department will pursue a dual track on

the two most promising tritium supply

alternatives: 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 to design, build, and test

critical components of an accelerator

system for tritium production. Within a

three-year period, the Department

would select one of the tracks to serve

as the primary source of tritium. The

other alternative, if feasible, would be

developed as a back-up tritium source.

Second, the Savannah River Site is

selected as the location for an

accelerator, should one be built. Third,

the tritium recycling facilities at the

Savannah River Site will be upgraded

and consolidated to support both of the

dual track options. If the commercial

reactor alternative is selected as the

primary source, a tritium extraction

facility will also be constructed at the

Savannah River Site. The environmental

analysis to support this decision was

issued by the Department in the Final

Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement for Tritium Supply and

Recycling (PEIS) DOE/EIS–0161

(October 1995). The PEIS identified the

dual-track strategy described above as

the preferred technology alternative.

The Savannah River Site was identified

as the preferred site for an accelerator,

and the site for the upgrade and

consolidation of existing recycling

facilities. The Department has decided

to implement the preferred alternatives.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Further information on the Final

Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement can be obtained by calling

800–776–2765, or writing to: Stephen

M. Sohinki, Director, Office of

Reconfiguration, DP–25, U.S.

Department of Energy, P.O. Box 3417,

Alexandria, VA 22302.

Information on the Department of

Energy National Environmental Policy

Act process can be obtained by

contacting: Carol M. Borgstrom,

Director, Office of NEPA Policy and

Assistance, EH–42, U.S. Department of

Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW.,

Washington DC 20585, Telephone: (202)

586–4600 or (800) 472–2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department of Energy has prepared this

Record of Decision pursuant to the

Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) Regulations for implementing the

procedural provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40

CFR Parts 1500–1508) and the

Department of Energy regulations

implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act (10 CFR Part

1021). This Record of Decision is based

on the Final Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement for

Tritium Supply and Recycling (DOE/

EIS–0161, October 1995) and the

Technical Reference Report for Tritium

Supply and Recycling (DOE/DP–0134,

October 1995). The Technical Reference

Report summarizes schedule,

production assurance and cost data and

presents the results of the uncertainty

analysis. Several comments and a report

from Congress were received after the

documents listed above were published.

This additional information was taken

into consideration in preparing this

Record of Decision.

In January 1991, the Department

announced it would prepare a

Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement (PEIS) examining alternatives

for the reconfiguration of the

Department’s nuclear weapons complex.

The framework for the Reconfiguration

PEIS was described in the Nuclear

Weapons Complex Reconfiguration

Study (DOE/DP–0083), issued in

January 1991. A Notice of Intent to

prepare the PEIS was published in the

Federal Register on February 11, 1991

(56 FR 5590). The purpose of the PEIS

was to establish the locations for future

weapons complex missions. The

missions to be analyzed included

plutonium and uranium component

fabrication and processing, weapons

assembly and disassembly, high

explosive production, tritium recycling,

and nonnuclear component fabrication.

At the time the Reconfiguration PEIS

was begun, technology and siting

alternatives for a new tritium supply

facility were being examined in a

separate New Production Reactor

Capacity Environmental Impact

Statement. On September 27, 1991,

President Bush announced an initiative

to reduce the Nation’s nuclear weapons

stockpile. In response to this initiative,

the need for new facilities was delayed

and the Department announced, on

November 1, 1991, that it would delay

decisions on the new production reactor

technology and siting and include the

environmental analysis for a new

tritium production source in the

Reconfiguration PEIS. The Department’s

intent to incorporate the New

Production Reactor capacity analysis

into the Reconfiguration PEIS was

published in the Federal Register on

November 29, 1991 (56 FR 60985).

In June 1992, the United States and

Russia announced an arms reduction

agreement which was signed in January

1993 as the START II Protocol. This

agreement caused the most significant

reductions to date in planned future

weapons stockpiles of both nations. It

also provided the Department with the

opportunity to consider a much smaller

weapons complex than previously

envisioned. Therefore, the Department

determined that it was necessary to

reevaluate the Reconfiguration Program

to insure that alternatives which

reflected requirements of a greatly

downsized nuclear weapons stockpile

would be assessed in the PEIS. On July

23, 1993, a revised Notice of Intent was

published in the Federal Register (58

FR 39528) which described a smaller,

more integrated nuclear weapons

complex. Additionally, long-term

storage alternatives for plutonium and

uranium were added to the analysis. As

a result of this reevaluation and public

comment, the Department published a

notice in the October 28, 1994, Federal

Register (59 FR 54175), that would

separate the Reconfiguration PEIS into

two separate analyses: the Tritium

Supply and Recycling PEIS and

Stockpile Stewardship and Management

PEIS.

On March 1, 1995 the Department

issued a Draft Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement for

Tritium Supply and Recycling (DOE/

EIS–0161) which presented an analysis

of the environmental impacts of the

proposed action and alternatives. In the

Draft PEIS, the Department indicated

that the use of a commercial reactor was

not a reasonable long-term tritium

supply alternative due to concerns

about the use of civilian reactors for

military purposes. However, the Draft

PEIS evaluated the impacts associated

with the use of a commercial reactor to

make tritium, whether such a reactor

were used as a contingency source of

tritium in the event of a national

emergency, or the Department chose to

purchase an existing reactor and convert

it to a defense facility for long-term

tritium supply. Comments received

during the agency and public review of

the Draft PEIS asserted that the use of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices 63879

an existing commercial reactor had the

potential to be the lowest cost option

and indicated confusion as to whether

purchase of a commercial reactor or

irradiation services from a privately

owned reactor were treated as

reasonable alternatives capable of

meeting long-term tritium requirements.

These comments and concerns

prompted the Department to issue a

Federal Register announcement on

August 25, 1995 (60 FR 44327) in which

the Department reopened the comment

period for 21 days regarding its

intention to treat both the purchase of

irradiation services and the purchase of

an existing or partially completed

reactor as reasonable alternatives for

long-term tritium supply. The

Department summarized all comments

received from both comment periods,

prepared responses to the summaries,

made revisions to the PEIS based on the

comments, and identified its preferred

alternative. The Notice of Availability of

the Final Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement was published in the

Federal Register on October 27, 1995

(60 FR 55021).

Comments have been received since

the Notice of Availability was published

asserting that there are errors in the

analysis of cost, schedule and

production assurance, especially

regarding a new large Advanced Light

Water Reactor. Comments were also

received regarding the multipurpose

reactor concept, and the use of the Fast

Flux Test Facility at the Department’s

Hanford site to produce tritium. These

comments are addressed in a

subsequent section of this Record of

Decision.

Alternatives Considered

Proposed Action: The Department of

Energy proposes to provide tritium

supply and recycling facilities for the

Nation’s Nuclear Weapons Complex.

Tritium, a radioactive isotope of

hydrogen, is produced in nature, but in

very small amounts. Therefore, since it

is an essential component of every

warhead in the current and projected

U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, the

amounts required must be man-made.

Tritium decays at a rate of

approximately 5.5 percent per year and

must be replaced periodically as long as

the Nation relies on a nuclear deterrent.

Currently, the Department does not have

the capability to produce the required

amounts of tritium. The Department

needs a capability that can produce

tritium to meet the requirements set

forth in the 1994 Nuclear Weapons

Stockpile Plan, the latest official

guidance. These requirements have been

defined as a steady-state mode of 3/16

of the goal amount previously

established for a nuclear reactor under

the Department’s New Production

Reactors (NPR) program. The tritium

supply source should also be capable of

producing 3/8 of NPR goal amount if

necessary either to eliminate inventory

shortfalls or to support a larger stockpile

size. The Department is currently

meeting tritium requirements for the

stockpile by utilizing tritium recycled

from dismantled weapons. Ratification

of the START II Protocol would mean

that new tritium would be required by

approximately 2011. The ability to meet

an earlier date, if stockpile requirements

should change, was also analyzed.

New tritium would be supplied, in

either a reactor or accelerator, by

irradiating target materials with

neutrons and subsequently extracting

the tritium in pure form for its use in

nuclear weapons. The tritium recycling

process consists of recovering residual

tritium from weapons components,

purifying it, and refilling weapons

components with pure tritium. The

Department’s tritium recycle facilities

are located at the Savannah River Site

(SRS) near Aiken, SC.

Four technology alternatives were

evaluated for a new supply facility—a

heavy water reactor, an advanced light

water reactor—both large (1,300 MWe)

and small (600 MWe); a modular high

temperature gas-cooled reactor; and a

linear accelerator. Emerging design

options for the heavy water reactor and

the modular high temperature gascooled reactor were also reviewed. The

advanced light water reactor and

modular high temperature gas-cooled

reactor alternatives were also evaluated

as to the potential use of fuel fabricated

from plutonium excess to weapons

program requirements while

simultaneously producing tritium and

electricity (the so-called ‘‘multipurpose

reactor’’). Five sites were evaluated for

a new facility—the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory (INEL), near

Idaho Falls, ID; the Nevada Test Site

(NTS), near Las Vegas, NV; the Oak

Ridge Reservation (ORR), Oak Ridge,

TN; the Pantex Plant (Pantex), Amarillo,

TX; and SRS. The Department also

evaluated the use of existing

commercial light water reactors, either

through purchase of an existing or

partially completed reactor that would

be converted for the production of

tritium or through purchase of

irradiation services from a privately

owned reactor. The purchase of an

existing or partially completed reactor

would allow the Department, should it

choose to do so, to implement the

multipurpose reactor concept. Such use

is evaluated in the Final PEIS and the

Technical Reference Report.

Additionally, in accordance with CEQ

regulations, the no action alternative

(not providing a new supply of tritium)

was evaluated.

Tritium recycling alternatives

evaluated included no action (utilizing

existing facilities at the Savannah River

Site with no upgrades or consolidation),

consolidation and upgrading of the

existing facilities, or construction of

new recycling facilities to be collocated

with a new tritium supply facility if the

Savannah River Site were not chosen as

the site for a new tritium supply facility.

The consolidation and upgrading of the

Savannah River Site recycling facilities

would support either a new tritium

supply facility (if constructed at the

Savannah River Site) or the use of an

existing commercial reactor (if a

commercial reactor were ultimately

selected as a long-term tritium supply

source or became necessary as a

contingency source of tritium). In

addition, a new tritium extraction

facility would be constructed at the

Savannah River Site.

Tritium Supply Technology

Alternatives

This section describes each of the

alternatives. The size of the facilities,

land area requirements, and

construction and operation workforces

are presented.

1. No Action: No Action is presented

for comparison with the action

alternatives. Under No Action, the

Department would not establish a new

tritium supply capability, the current

inventory of tritium would decay, and

the Department would eventually not

meet stockpile requirements for tritium.

Construct and Operate New Facilities

2. Accelerator Production of Tritium

(APT): An APT would accelerate a

proton beam in a long tunnel toward

one of two target/blanket assemblies

located in separate target stations. Such

an accelerator would be approximately

4,000 feet in length and would be

housed in a concrete tunnel buried 40

to 50 feet underground. It would require

approximately 550 MWe of electricity

during peak production periods (to meet

the 3/8 requirement) and 355 MWe to

produce the steady-state requirement (to

meet the 3/16 requirement) of tritium. In

addition to the accelerator, the facility

would include a klystron manufacturing

and remanufacturing building as well as

waste treatment, maintenance,

operation, and administrative buildings,

and a security infrastructure. Two target

types are being analyzed, a helium-3

target which uses helium-3 gas to make

tritium or a spallation-induced lithium
63880 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices

conversion (SILC) target which uses

lithium-6 to make tritium. The facilities

required for the helium-3 target include

target fabrication and target processing

(including extraction) buildings.

Facilities for the SILC target include

target fabrication, target processing, and

tritium extraction buildings. The APT

complex would cover approximately

173 acres. Construction would take

approximately 5 years and require

approximately 2,760 workers during the

peak construction year. Operation of the

APT would require approximately 624

workers.

3. Advanced Light Water Reactor

(ALWR): The ALWR would be a high

temperature, high pressure reactor

whose primary purpose would be to

produce tritium, but which would also

generate substantial amounts of

electricity. There are two options for the

ALWR technology: A large ALWR (1,300

MWe) and a small ALWR (600 MWe).

Both options use light (regular) water as

the reactor coolant and moderator, and

include a power conversion facility as

an integral part of the design. The

design of the ALWR complex would

include an interim spent fuel storage

building, a waste treatment facility, a

tritium target processing facility,

warehouses, and security infrastructure.

Fuel rods would be purchased from

commercial suppliers.

Large ALWR: The large ALWR

complex would require approximately

350 acres. Construction would take

approximately 6 years and

approximately 3,500 workers during the

peak construction year. Operation

would require approximately 830

workers.

Small ALWR: The small ALWR

complex would also require

approximately 350 acres. Construction

would take approximately 5 years and

require approximately 2,200 workers

during the peak construction year.

Operation would require approximately

500 workers.

4. Heavy Water Reactor (HWR): The

HWR would be a low pressure, low

temperature reactor whose sole purpose

would be to produce tritium. The HWR

uses heavy water (i.e. deuterium oxide)

as the reactor coolant and moderator.

Because of the low temperature of the

exit coolant, a power conversion system

designed to produce electrical power as

an option would not be feasible. The

conceptual design of the HWR complex

includes a fuel and target fabrication

facility, a tritium target processing

building, an interim spent fuel storage

building, a general services building,

and security infrastructure. The HWR

complex would cover approximately

260 acres. Construction would take

somewhat less than 8 years and require

approximately 2,320 workers during the

peak construction year. Operation

would require approximately 930

workers.

Small Advanced HWR: The small

advanced HWR is an emerging design

variation of the HWR. The design output

of the small advanced HWR would be

470 MWt compared to 990 MWt for the

HWR. It would have the same

configuration of support buildings

although they would be somewhat

smaller. The design could be developed

to produce tritium to meet steady-state

tritium requirements, or modified to

meet peak capacity requirements. The

total area required for the complex

would be 150 to 170 acres. Construction

would take approximately 5 years and

require approximately 1,800 workers

during the peak year of construction. An

operational workforce has not been

estimated.

5. Modular High Temperature GasCooled Reactor (MHTGR): The MHTGR

would be a high temperature, moderate

pressure reactor whose primary purpose

would be to produce tritium, but which

would also generate substantial amounts

of electricity. The MHTGR would use

helium gas as a core coolant and

graphite as a moderator. A steam cycle

MHTGR would use a heat converter to

transfer the heat from the helium

coolant to feedwater producing superheated steam which is then used to

drive a turbine in the production of

electricity.

The steam cycle MHTGR requires

three 350 MWt reactors to produce the

maximum (3/8) requirement of tritium.

Because of the high temperature of the

exit coolant, a power conversion facility

designed to produce electricity is an

integral part of the design. The design

of the MHTGR complex, in addition to

the three reactors, includes a fuel and

target fabrication facility, a tritium target

processing facility, helium storage

buildings, waste treatment facilities,

interim spent fuel storage facility,

general services building, security

infrastructure, and power conversion

facility. The MHTGR complex would

cover approximately 360 acres.

Construction of the MHTGR would take

about 9 years and require approximately

2,210 workers during the peak

construction period. Operation would

require approximately 910 workers.

Direct Cycle MHTGR: A direct cycle

MHTGR is an emerging design variation

of the steam cycle MHTGR. In this

design the primary helium coolant

drives a turbine generator through a gascompression/gas-expansion, heating/

cooling cycle. Two 600 MWt direct

cycle reactors would be needed to

produce the maximum (3/8)

requirement of tritium. The support

facilities, resource requirements, and

environmental impacts of the direct

cycle MHTGR are similar to the steam

cycle MHTGR. A two reactor direct

cycle MHTGR would require fewer

operating personnel than the three

module steam cycle MHTGR.

Use Existing Reactors

6. Existing Commercial Reactors: The

purchase by the Department of an

existing operating reactor, the purchase

of a partially completed reactor, or the

purchase of irradiation services from a

commercial power reactor(s)(with an

option to purchase the reactor) are the

three options evaluated which utilize

existing facilities. Commercial light

water reactors use both pressurized

water and boiling water technologies.

The Department has conducted

significant development work on tritium

targets for pressurized water reactors.

Significant additional development

work would likely be required to

develop a target for a boiling water

reactor. The Department plans to

proceed with development of the target

for the pressurized water reactor, but

has not ruled out the use of boiling

water reactors if industry demonstrates

an advantage to the Department in

developing such a target.

Commercial pressurized water

reactors are high-temperature, high

pressure reactors that use ordinary light

water as the coolant and moderator and

are capable of generating large amounts

of electricity through a steam turbine

generator. A typical commercial light

water reactor facility includes the

reactor building, turbine generator

building, auxiliary buildings, interim

spent fuel storage facilities, cooling

towers, a switchyard for the

transmission of electricity, maintenance

buildings, administrative buildings, and

security facilities.

Purchase of an Operating Commercial

Light Water Reactor or Purchase of

Irradiation Services: Approximately 72

to 127 workers (depending upon the

number of reactors utilized) would be

added to the work force because of the

tritium activities. New fencing and

security buildings may be required to

support additional security

requirements. Road access restrictions

or construction of new roads may also

be required.

Purchase of a Partially Constructed

Commercial Light Water Reactor: The

number of construction workers and the

length of the construction period would

vary depending on the percentage of

completion of the plant. Data were

available for a two-unit reactor plant
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices 63881

with one unit 45 percent complete and

the second unit 85 percent complete.

The schedule data estimated completing

the 45 percent complete unit in 5 years

or both units simultaneously in 7 years.

Since the Department is only interested

in one unit, the 5 year estimate was

selected. It is possible that the 85

percent unit could be completed in a

shorter time. For the 45 percent

complete unit, peak year workers were

estimated to be approximately 2,065.

The 85 percent complete unit would

require a peak work force of

approximately 1,525. Operations would

require approximately 830 workers.

Other Missions Beyond Tritium

Production

Multi-Purpose Reactor Concept: The

ALWR, MHTGR, and the purchase

options of the commercial reactor

alternative would also be capable of

utilizing fuel fabricated from excess

plutonium to make tritium and generate

electricity. To ‘‘burn’’ plutonium in an

ALWR or a commercial light water

reactor, a plutonium Pit Disassembly,

Conversion, and Fuel Fabrication

Facility would be needed to fabricate

the plutonium and uranium (mixed

oxide) fuel rods. For the MHTGR, only

a plutonium Pit Disassembly and

Conversion Facility would be needed,

because the MHTGR design already

includes a fuel fabrication facility. The

MHTGR, if used to ‘‘burn’’ plutonium,

would utilize fuel fabricated solely from

plutonium without blending it with

uranium. However, because tritium

production declines significantly in a

plutonium-fueled MHTGR, twice as

many reactors would be necessary in

order to produce the steady-state (3/16)

tritium requirements. The need to

include a plutonium Pit Disassembly,

Conversion, and Fuel Fabrication

facility for the ALWR and commercial

reactor options, and the need for

plutonium Pit Disassembly and

Conversion Facility and more reactors

for the MHTGR, would be major

contributors to potential direct

environmental impacts.

If an ALWR or commercial light water

reactor were used as multi-purpose

facilities, the new plutonium Pit

Disassembly, Conversion, and Fuel

Fabrication Facility would cover up to

129 acres and require a peak

construction work force of

approximately 745 during the 6-year

construction period. Operation would

require approximately 650 workers. If

an MHTGR were used as a multipurpose reactor, the new plutonium Pit

Disassembly and Conversion Facility

would cover up to 30 acres and require

a peak construction work force of

approximately 125 during the 6-year

construction period. Operation would

require approximately 520 workers.

Recycling Facilities

The tritium recycling facility

processes and recycles tritium for use in

nuclear weapons. This includes

emptying reservoirs returned from

weapons in the stockpile, recovering

and purifying the tritium, reclaiming

reusable reservoirs, providing new gas

mixtures, and refilling reservoirs. The

facility also tests reservoirs and

provides appropriate waste management

activities.

1. No Action: The Department

currently operates tritium recycling

facilities at the Savannah River Site.

These facilities would continue to

operate without modifications or

consolidation to meet environmental,

health, and safety requirements, or to

maximize efficiencies. Environmental

impacts would not change from those

experienced today.

2. Construct New Facilities: If the

tritium supply and recycling facilities

were to be located at any site other than

the Savannah River Site, new recycling

facilities could be collocated with the

supply facilities. The tritium recycling

activities would be housed in two

buildings for operations and several

support facilities. All tritium handling

activities would be completed in the

tritium processing building, which

would be designed to contain tritium

releases should they occur. An auxiliary

building would house non-tritium

activities and extremely small amounts

of working tritium. The recycling

facilities would cover approximately

196 acres. Construction would take

approximately 4 years and require

approximately 335 workers during the

peak year of construction. Operation of

the recycling facilities would require

approximately 910 workers.

3. Upgrade Existing Facilities at

Savannah River Site: There are two

options for the upgrade of recycling

facilities at the Savannah River Site. The

first, the unconsolidated upgrade,

would result in the continued use of all

existing facilities and thus no

consolidation of tritium handling

activities. Five buildings would be

upgraded in order to meet

environmental, health, and safety

requirements. No additional land area

would be required. Construction of the

upgrades would take approximately 3

years and require approximately 26

workers during the peak construction

year. Operations would require

approximately 970 workers.

The second option, the consolidated

upgrade, would result in closing one

building and transferring its functions to

two existing buildings. Four buildings

would be upgraded to meet

environmental, health, and safety

requirements and one to accept the

transferred activities. The land area

required for the facilities would not

change. Construction would take

approximately 3 years and require

approximately 36 workers during the

peak construction year. Operations

would require approximately 910

workers.

Siting of New Tritium Supply Facilities

New tritium supply facilities, if

constructed, would be located at one of

five sites currently owned by the

Department. These five sites are:

1. Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory: The INEL is situated on

approximately 570,000 acres,

approximately 50 miles west of Idaho

Falls and presently employs

approximately 10,100 workers. The site

has been used to test, build, and operate

nuclear facilities. Research and

development activities include reactor

performance studies, materials testing,

environmental monitoring, waste

processing, breeder reactor

development, and naval reactor operator

training. Currently, there are four

operational reactors. In addition to

nuclear research, INEL supports

processing and/or storage of high-level,

low-level, and transuranic radioactive

wastes.

2. Nevada Test Site: The NTS is

situated on approximately 854,000

acres, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Approximately 6,850 workers are

presently employed at the site. The site

is a remote secure facility for

conducting underground testing of

nuclear weapons and evaluating the

effects of nuclear detonations on

military communications, electronics,

satellites, sensors, and other materials.

NTS is also the location of a low level

radioactive waste management facility.

3. Oak Ridge Reservation: The ORR is

located on approximately 35,000 acres,

20 miles west of Knoxville, TN.

Approximately 15,000 workers are

presently employed at the site. It

includes three major facilities: the Oak

Ridge National Laboratory; Y–12 Plant,

and the K–25 site. The Oak Ridge

National Laboratory conducts basic and

applied scientific research and

technology development. The K–25 site

is the location of the former Oak Ridge

Gaseous Diffusion Plant. It currently

serves as an operations center for

environmental restoration and waste

management programs. Y–12 is the

primary location for nuclear weapons

activities at Oak Ridge. These include
63882 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices

the dismantling of nuclear weapons

components, maintaining uranium and

lithium component fabrication

capabilities, and storing special nuclear

materials.

4. Pantex Plant: The Pantex Plant is

located on 10,000 acres, 17 miles

northeast of Amarillo, TX.

Approximately 3,400 workers are

presently employed at the site.

Activities at Pantex include fabrication

of chemical explosives, nuclear

weapons assembly and disassembly,

testing, repair and disposal of

nonnuclear components, and

development activities in support of the

national laboratories. Pantex also is the

interim storage site for sealed plutonium

components from dismantled weapons.

5. Savannah River Site: The SRS is

situated on approximately 198,000

acres, 12 miles south of Aiken, SC.

Approximately 20,300 workers are

presently employed at the site.

Currently, tritium recycling operations

to support nuclear weapons activities

are conducted at the SRS. Other

activities include interim storage of

plutonium, waste management, and

environmental monitoring and

restoration. Past activities at SRS have

included nuclear fuel and tritium target

fabrication, operation of reactors for

nuclear material production, chemical

separation for recovery of plutonium

and plutonium isotopes, tritium

extraction, and uranium fuel

reprocessing. The facilities that

supported these past activities are

currently supporting waste management

and environmental cleanup activities

and will ultimately be decommissioned

and decontaminated.

Commercial Reactor Site: The

commercial light water analysis does

not evaluate a specific site. Currently,

commercial light water reactors are

operating on 59 sites in 32 states.

Approximately one-half of these sites

contain two or three nuclear units. The

sites range in size from 84 to 30,000

acres. The largest use of the sites is for

cooling systems, including reservoirs

and artificial lakes, and safety buffer

areas. Analysis of specific candidate

reactors would be conducted in a

separate NEPA document.

Preferred Alternative

Based on the analysis presented in the

PEIS and Technical Reference Report,

the Department announced a preferred

alternative in the FINAL PEIS. The

preferred alternative is a acquisition

strategy that assures tritium production

for the nuclear weapons stockpile

rapidly, cost effectively, and safely. The

preferred strategy is to begin work on

the most promising production

alternatives of purchasing an existing

commercial light water reactor or

irradiation services with an option to

purchase the reactor for conversion to a

defense facility, and to design, build,

and test critical components of an

accelerator system for tritium

production.

The Savannah River Site was

designated as the preferred site for an

accelerator, should one be built. The

preferred alternative for tritium

recycling and extraction activities was

to remain at the Savannah River Site

with appropriate consolidation and

upgrading of current facilities, and

construction of a new extraction facility.

Tritium Supply Evaluation

This section describes the results of

the Department’s evaluation of each of

the alternatives. It summarizes their

environmental impacts, costs, and

schedule and production assurance

risks. The evaluation of schedule,

production assurance and costs were

completed by developing base estimates

and then conducting a formal

assessment by experts to determine the

risk. The risk is presented as the

probability of achieving a specific

objective. Base cases were developed for

six schedule components, production

capacity and availability, and five cost

components. The estimates were

normalized to insure consistency across

all tritium supply alternatives.

Technical experts (different groups for

schedule, production assurance, and

cost) were asked to provide judgments

of the probability of success of the base

estimates for each of the schedule

components, capacity and availability,

and each of the cost components. In

addition, potential technical, regulatory,

or institutional problems were

identified for each tritium supply

alternative and their probability for

causing schedule delay, production

assurance uncertainty or cost

uncertainty were assessed. The impacts

of the problems on schedule, capacity

and availability, and cost were assessed.

This information was combined through

multiple simulations to develop

probabilities of meeting various

schedule, production assurance and cost

objectives. The environmental impacts

reported in the PEIS were evaluated for

discriminators among tritium supply

technologies and among sites.

The schedule, production assurance,

and waste factors which discriminate

among tritium supply technology

alternatives are summarized in Table 1.

These are: (1) The capability of meeting

a schedule supporting a START II

Protocol stockpile size; (2) the

likelihood of producing the amount of

tritium necessary to meet maximum (3/

8) tritium requirements; (3) amount of

additional spent fuel generated; and (4)

amount of additional solid low level

radioactive waste generated. Costs are

presented in Table 2. They are divided

into: (a) Total life cycle cost with

revenue; (b) total life cycle cost without

revenue; (c) total project cost; (d)

operations and maintenance cost; and

(e) revenue.

Additional environmental

discriminators are the need for or

generation of electricity, and cancer risk

from a severe accident. The APT and

HWR are users of electricity while the

ALWR(s), MHTGR(s), and purchase of a

partially completed or existing

commercial reactor will result in the

generation of additional electricity. The

range between the potential amount of

electricity used (550 MWe for the APT)

and the potential amount of electricity

generated (1,300 MWe for the large

ALWR) is 1,850 MWe. The amount of

electricity used was evaluated for each

candidate site against the capability of

the power pool to supply electricity. No

significant impacts on the pool or the

ability to supply the required amounts

were identified. A separate evaluation of

the option of the construction and

operation of a dedicated 550 MWe coal

or gas-fired electrical generating plant

was completed for the APT. The

potential impacts of a gas-fired electrical

generating plant were incorporated into

the environmental analysis for each of

the sites. The cancer risks attributable to

a severe accident are, in absolute terms,

very low for each alternative. However,

in comparative terms, the APT clearly

has a significantly lower cancer risk

than any of the new facility reactor

alternatives. Therefore, cancer risk is

considered a discriminator between the

APT and new reactor alternatives for the

purposes of this decision. The results of

the evaluations are described below.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices 63883

TABLE 1.—SCHEDULE, PRODUCTION ASSURANCE, AND WASTE DISCRIMINATORS

Alternatives

Probability of

delivering

first gas

in 2011 a

Probability of

producing

START I

amounts

in any

one year

Additional spent fuel generated per year (yd 3/yr)Additional solid low level

waste generated (yd 3/yr)

No Action ............................................................................... 0 0 0 ......................................... 0

APT ........................................................................................ 0.76 0.77 0 ......................................... 57 e

Large ALWR .......................................................................... 0.78 0.96 55 ....................................... 710

Small ALWR .......................................................................... 0.78 0.89 36 ....................................... 660

HWR ...................................................................................... 0.40 0.93 7 ......................................... 5,200

Small Advanced HWR ........................................................... <0.40 b 0.79 <7 f ...................................... <5,200f

Steam Cycle MHTGR ............................................................ 0.22 0.86 80 ....................................... 1,300

Direct Cycle MHTGR ............................................................. <0.14 c 0.49 82 ....................................... ∼1,300 g

Purchase Existing CLWR ...................................................... >0.99 d >0.96 40 ....................................... 160

Purchase Partially Complete CLWR ..................................... >0.99 d >0.96 Similar to Large ALWR ...... Similar to Large ALWR

Purchase Irradiation Services ................................................ >0.99 d >0.96 0 to 40 depending on number of reactors used.160

a Includes technical, regulatory, and institutional delays.

b Due to emerging state of technology longer delays than HWR assumed.

cProbability without any delays is 0.14. Delay would reduce this probability.

dAssumes institutional questions are resolved.

eFor Helium-3 target; 544 yd3/yr for SILC target. f No analysis completed, however, expected to be the same or less than the HWR.

g No analysis completed, however, expected to be approximately the same as the steam cycle MHTGR.

1. Ability to meet required schedules.

To meet projected stockpile

requirements for tritium, new tritium

gas is required by 2011. This date is

based on a stockpile consistent with the

START II Protocol. Maintaining a

stockpile consistent with the START I

Treaty would require new tritium gas by

2005. The schedule analyses assumed a

requirement to deliver tritium in 2011.

A sensitivity analysis assessed the

ability of the alternatives to deliver new

tritium gas in 2005.
63884 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices

TABLE 2.—COST

EVALUATION

DATA AT

SAVANNAH

RIVER

SITE

[In Billions of 1995 Dollars]

Alternatives

Total life cycle cost w/o

revenue a

Total life cycle cost w/o

revenue a

Total project

cost a

Operations and maintenance b costs a

Low Mean High Low Mean High Low Mean High Low Mean High

No Action .......................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0APT ................................................................................... 3.6 5.1 7.8 3.6 5.1 7.8 2.0 3.0 5.5 1.4 2.1 2.9Large ALWR ..................................................................... 1.3 3.7 7.6 4.8 6.5 10.2 2.4 4.0 7.2 1.9 2.5 3.3Small ALWR ..................................................................... 1.5 2.7 4.5 3.2 4.2 5.8 1.6 2.3 3.9 1.4 1.8 2.5HWR ................................................................................. 4.3 5.8 8.1 4.3 5.8 8.1 2.6 3.8 6.4 1.4 2.0 2.9Small Advanced HWR ...................................................... 2.9 4.2 5.7 2.9 4.2 5.7 1.8 2.7 4.1 0.9 1.5 2.1Steam Cycle MHTGR ....................................................... 4.1 6.3 9.9 5.0 7.1 10.7 3.0 4.5 7.8 1.8 2.6 3.7Direct Cycle MHTGR ........................................................ 3.0 5.0 8.3 4.2 6.0 9.5 2.5 4.1 7.4 1.4 1.9 2.6Purchase existing CLWR .................................................. 0.8 1.4 3.8 2.8 4.1 5.2 1.0 1.7 2.8 1.7 2.4 3.2Purchase partially complete CLWR .................................. 0.1 2.0 4.4 2.9 4.4 6.6 1.1 1.9 3.4 1.7 2.5 3.8Purchase Irradiation Services ........................................... 0.8 1.2 1.7 0.8 1.2 1.7 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.7 1.1

aThe costs are for steady-state production, discounted at 4.9% per year at SRS for new facilities. The low estimate corresponds to the 5th percentile of the cost probability distribution.

The high estimate corresponds to the 95th percentile of the cost probability distribution. bOperations and maintenance costs include decontamination and decommissioning costs.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices 63885

The potential for technical or

regulatory delays in the baseline

schedule was also considered in

assessing schedule uncertainties for

each of the technologies. Technical

delays relate to issues such as the

maturity of the facility design,

operational experience associated with

the technology and maturity of the

target design. Regulatory delays relate to

the potential that independent reviews

by organizations external to the

Department could take longer than

anticipated, either due to administrative

licensing proceedings or to resolution of

technical issues that delays design

acceptance by the reviewing

organization. By the end of 1995, a Task

Force on External Regulation

established by the Department is

scheduled to present its

recommendations whether the

Department’s nuclear facilities should

be externally regulated, and if so, by

what entity. While a number of different

outcomes are possible as a result of the

Task Force efforts, the Nation’s

commercial nuclear reactors are now

regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC). Therefore, in

considering scenarios that involved

regulatory delay, the Department used

the NRC regulatory process and

structure as the basis for this

consideration, and assumed that an NRC

license would be obtained for

construction and operation of the

reactor technologies.

Since the NRC has the greatest

amount of experience with regulation of

light water reactors, the potential

regulatory delays associated with the

light water options, either the new

ALWR designs or the existing

commercial reactor options, were

assumed to be the shortest among the

reactor technologies. Potential

regulatory delays associated with the

MHTGR and the HWR would be greater

than for the light water candidates

because changes to the NRC’s regulatory

structure would be required to license

these technologies. While there will be

technical and potential regulatory

reviews associated with the APT design,

the safety issues associated with this

technology are not nearly as complex as

those associated with any of the reactor

technologies. Therefore, the potential

for regulatory delays was assessed to be

minimal. The purchase of an existing or

partially complete commercial reactor

would also require the transfer of a

license to the Department, which would

require a change to the Atomic Energy

Act and corresponding changes to the

NRC regulations.

While issues related to the new

facility technologies are primarily

technical and regulatory, existing

commercial reactors are subject to an

additional set of institutional issues that

must be resolved before this option

could be implemented to meet longterm tritium requirements. These center

around concerns about the use of

civilian commercial reactors for

purposes which support military

requirements. Such issues have been

raised in the past predominantly in

conjunction with the use of civilian

reactors to produce special nuclear

materials (highly enriched uranium and

plutonium) which would, in turn, be

used to make nuclear weapons. Any

concerns will have to be addressed and

resolved over the course of the next

several years if the commercial reactor

alternative options are to be utilized as

the primary long-term source of tritium.

The no action alternative would not

be able to produce new tritium.

Therefore, it could not meet the

schedule requirements.

Of the action alternatives, the

commercial reactor options have the

highest probability of meeting the 2011

start date, if there are no technical or

institutional delays. However, as noted

above, there are institutional issues

related to their implementation. If these

issues cannot be resolved, the

commercial reactor alternative would

remain only as a contingency source of

tritium in the event of an emergency.

Even when delays or major issues are

taken into account, the ALWRs, among

the new facility alternatives, have a high

probability of meeting the required 2011

start date. The base case construction

schedule of the small ALWR is one year

shorter than that of the large ALWR.

However, the small ALWR has a higher

risk of technical delays due to the

uncertainties surrounding its passive

safety system and potential regulatory

delays, due to the fact that it has not yet

received NRC design certification. The

APT has only a slightly smaller

probability of meeting the 2011 date

compared to the ALWRs, and it is

expected to have very few technical or

regulatory delay problems. The HWR

and the MHTGR would have difficulty

in meeting the 2011 date.

The sensitivity analysis on producing

tritium as early as 2005 assumed that

the base schedules could be compressed

by 2 years, and that no technical or

regulatory delays would occur. It

showed that the commercial options

have a high probability (0.80 to 0.99) of

meeting the 2005 date. The APT and the

small ALWR have a small (0.20)

probability of producing tritium by 2005

if no delays are experienced. None of

the other alternatives could produce

tritium by 2005.

The assessment also showed that the

schedule for completing all activities to

develop a multipurpose reactor would

be similar or identical to that of the

MHTGR, ALWRs, and purchase of a

commercial reactor options if they are

used for tritium production alone, as

long as the tritium mission is given

priority over the plutonium burning and

electricity production missions.

In summary, the no action alternative

is not able to meet tritium schedule

requirements. The HWR and MHTGR

have the potential for major technical or

institutional delays; thus, there is a low

probability of their making tritium by

the 2011 start date. The ALWRs and the

APT have a very high probability of

delivering tritium by 2011. The

commercial options have the highest

potential for delivering tritium by 2011,

if the institutional issues associated

with the defense use of such facilities

can be resolved. Only the commercial

options have a high probability of

delivering tritium by 2005, if that

becomes a requirement.

2. Ability to produce the required

amounts of tritium. Production

assurance refers to the ability of the

tritium supply alternatives to meet the

annual production requirements for

maintaining the tritium inventory. The

steady-state (3/16) and maximum (3/8)

production rates were used in the

production assurance analysis.

The second column of Table 1

summarizes the results of the

production assurance analysis in terms

of the probability that a tritium supply

option can meet the maximum rate in

any given year. Since the facility is

designed to operate for 40 years, a

technology that produced at more than

the maximum rate in any given year

would produce excess tritium. If such a

year is followed by a year that the

technology produced at less than the

maximum rate, the combination of years

would still produce roughly the desired

overall quantity of tritium over the 40-

year lifetime of the facility. Thus, a

production rate with a 0.50 probability

of a rate meeting or exceeding the

maximum rate in any given year

provides a reasonable degree of

production assurance. A 0.75

probability of meeting or exceeding the

maximum rate every year is a high

degree of production assurance, since it

means that roughly during 30 years of

the 40 years of production the

maximum rate will be exceeded.

For all tritium supply alternatives,

with the exception of the direct cycle

MHTGR, there is a high probability of

producing the required amounts of

tritium (0.77 or higher). The direct cycle
63886 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices

MHTGR has a moderate probability of

production assurance (0.49).

The production assurance of a

multipurpose reactor would not change

from that of the MHTGR, ALWR, and

commercial reactor purchase options, as

long as tritium production is the

primary mission of the facility. National

security requirements mandate that

tritium supply remain the primary

mission of a multipurpose reactor.

In summary, the no action alternative

has no chance of meeting the tritium

production requirements. With the

exception of the direct cycle MHTGR,

all other alternatives have very high

probabilities of meeting the steady-state

and maximum production requirements.

3. Environmental Impacts. The Final

PEIS presents numerous environmental

impacts for a variety of resource areas

for each of the new tritium supply

facility alternatives at each of the five

sites, and generic impacts for the

commercial reactor options. The

analysis was completed for meeting the

maximum (3/8) goal requirement of

tritium. Many of these impacts are very

small. For example, the air quality

impacts of all technological alternatives

at all sites are very low. Most other

impacts show little or no differentiation

among alternatives. The evaluation of

the tritium supply alternatives focuses,

therefore, on the three environmental

impacts that differentiate among the

tritium supply alternatives: spent fuel

generation, low level radioactive waste

generation and risks from severe

accidents. For all three of these area of

environmental impact, the no action

alternative would not change the status

quo, i.e., no tritium would be produced.

Therefore, it has the lowest

environmental impact. This section

presents the evaluation of tritium

supply technology alternatives which

are not site dependent. The following

section presents the evaluation of the

sites.

3.1 Spent fuel. Spent fuel is

measured by the cubic yards of

radioactive spent fuel rods produced

during reactor operations in one year.

The third column of Table 1 shows the

annual amounts of spent fuel generated

by the reactor supply alternatives. The

new reactors generate spent fuel

amounts ranging from 7 cubic yards to

80 cubic yards. The options to purchase

an operating reactor or to purchase

irradiation services would create up to

40 cubic yards of additional spent fuel

(if only one reactor were utilized) due

to shorter refueling cycles. If there were

no change to the refueling cycles, no

additional spent fuel would be

generated. The option to purchase an

incomplete reactor would create

amounts of spent fuel comparable to

those of the large ALWR. The APT does

not generate any spent fuel. No

additional spent fuel would be

produced by virtue of the use of fuel

fabricated from excess plutonium for the

ALWR, MHTGR, or purchase

commercial reactors options.

3.2 Low level radioactive waste. The

fourth column of Table 1 shows the

annual amounts of low level radioactive

waste produced by the supply

alternatives. For the new facility

alternatives the HWR creates by far the

most low level radioactive waste (5,200

cubic yards), followed by the other new

rectors. The APT generates the least

amount of low level radioactive waste

(57 cubic yards) when using the helium3 target, and 544 cubic yards when

using the SILC target. The options to

purchase an operating commercial

reactor or to purchase irradiation

services would create 160 cubic yards of

additional low level radioactive waste

due to the use of additional fuel rods

and to handling additional radioactive

materials. The option of purchasing an

incomplete reactor would produce

amounts of low level radioactive wastes

that are similar to those of the large

ALWR. A multipurpose reactor would

generate about the same amount of low

level radioactive waste as the reactor

when used for tritium production alone.

However, the plutonium Pit

Disassembly and Conversion and

Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility

for the ALWR and commercial reactor

options would generate approximately

540 cubic yards of low level radioactive

waste annually. The plutonium Pit

Disassembly and Conversion Facility for

the MHTGR would generate

approximately 10 cubic yards of low

level radioactive waste per year.

3.3 Severe accidents. Risk is the

probability of an accident occurring

times the consequences of the accident

if it occurred. Cancer risk to a

population within a 50-mile radius of a

facility is influenced by the size of the

population within the radius. However,

technologies can be compared if the

same 50 mile radius is used for the

analysis. For the purposes of

comparison the SRS is used. The annual

cancer risk from a severe accident to the

population within 50 miles of the

facility for the new reactor technologies

is very low, ranging from 5.1x10¥5 to

2.6x10¥7 at the SRS. The APT would

have the lowest annual cancer risk

(2.8x10¥11) for all the new facility

alternatives. The options to purchase an

operating reactor or to purchase

irradiation services would pose no

significant additional severe accident

risks because of adding tritium

production. The option to purchase an

incomplete commercial reactor would

have severe accident risks that are

comparable to that of a large ALWR.

The use of plutonium as mixed oxide

fuel in an ALWR or the purchase of

commercial reactor options would not

significantly affect the consequences of

radioactivity releases from severe

accidents though there would be some

small changes in the source term release

spectrum and frequency. The MHTGR

would have twice as many reactors

when operated in the multipurpose

mode, and therefore, while extremely

small, the accident risk for the MHTGR

would double if used in this mode

compared to the risk if used for tritium

production alone.

An accident at a plutonium Pit

Disassembly and Conversion and

Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility

for the ALWR and purchase of

commercial reactor options would result

in a small additional cancer risk from a

severe accident if located at the SRS. A

severe accident at the plutonium Pit

Disassembly and Conversion facility for

the MHTGR would also result in a small

additional cancer risk.

In summary, the no action alternative

has no additional environmental

impacts. The APT and the commercial

options to purchase an operating reactor

or to purchase irradiation services, if the

fuel cycle is not changed, generate no

additional spent fuel, and have the

lowest amounts of additional low level

radioactive waste and cancer risks from

a severe accident. The new reactor

alternatives and the completion of a

partially complete commercial reactor

produce spent fuel and low level

radioactive waste, and they present a

very small additional cancer risk from a

severe accident.

4. Affordability (Cost). For each action

alternative, a range of costs, and the

probability distributions over the range,

were developed for Total Life Cycle Cost

(TLCC), Total Project Cost (TPC), and

Operation and Maintenance (O&M). The

O&M costs included decontamination

and decommissioning. No costs were

developed for the no action alternative.

For the action alternatives, results were

calculated for both undiscounted and

discounted cost. The discount rate used

was 4.9% per year in accordance with

Office of Management and Budget

guidance. The ALWR, MHTGR, and

purchase commercial reactor options

can produce revenues through

electricity generation. The TLCC was

calculated with and without revenues

for these alternatives. Costs were

estimated both for steady-state and

maximum production rates.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices 63887

The results of the cost ranges for

steady-state production using

discounted 1995 dollars are shown in

Table 2. For each alternative a low,

mean and high cost estimate is

presented for TLCC with revenue, TLCC

without revenue, TPC and O&M. The

low estimate is the 5th percentile of the

cost probability distribution, i.e., there

is a 5% chance that the true cost will

fall below the low estimate. The mean

estimate is the average of the cost

probability distribution. The high

estimate is the 95th percentile of the

cost probability distribution, i.e., there

is a 95% chance that the true cost will

fall below it.

The TLCC with revenue represents

the estimated cumulative discounted

net cost to the government or the

taxpayers for each of the alternatives,

since revenues from electricity sales

would come to the government, not the

Department. The Department must

budget for all costs; therefore, the TLCC

without revenue shows the estimated

cumulative discounted cost to the

Department. TPC represents the

discounted capital cost estimates to

develop, construct and make

operational each alternative. The O&M

costs are the discounted costs after the

facility would become operational.

For TLCC with revenues (first column

of Table 2), the option to purchase

irradiation services has the lowest mean

estimated cost (1.2 billion dollars) with

uncertainty adding approximately 500

million dollars (95th percentile above

the mean). The option to purchase an

existing reactor has a mean cost of 1.4

billion dollars (17 percent higher than

purchasing irradiation services) with

uncertainty adding approximately 2.4

billion dollars. The option to purchase

a partially complete commercial reactor

has a mean cost of 2.0 billion dollars (67

percent higher than purchasing

irradiation services) with uncertainty

adding 2.4 billion dollars. The new

reactor technology alternatives have

mean costs that range from 2.7 billion

dollars for the small ALWR (125 percent

higher than purchasing irradiation

services) to 6.3 billion dollars for the

steam cycle MHTGR (425 percent higher

than purchasing irradiation services).

All new reactor alternatives have

significant cost uncertainties, which add

from 1.5 billion dollars (small advanced

HWR) to 3.9 billion dollars (large

ALWR). The APT has a mean cost of 5.1

billion dollars (325 percent higher than

purchasing irradiation services) with

uncertainty adding approximately 2.7

billion dollars. The large uncertainties

create a substantial overlap in the cost

distributions of the alternatives, except

for the purchase of irradiation services.

For TLCC without revenues (second

column of Table 2), the option to

purchase irradiation services has the

lowest mean estimated cost (1.2 billion

dollars) with uncertainty adding

approximately 500 million dollars (95th

percentile above the mean). The option

to purchase an existing reactor has a

mean cost of 4.1 billion dollars (242

percent higher than purchasing

irradiation services) with uncertainty

adding approximately 1.1 billion

dollars. The option to purchase a

partially complete commercial reactor

has a mean cost of 4.4 billion dollars

(267 percent higher than purchasing

irradiation services) with uncertainty

adding approximately 2.2 billion

dollars. The new reactor technology

alternatives have mean costs that range

from 4.2 billion dollars for the small

ALWR and small advanced HWR (250

percent higher than purchasing

irradiation services) to 7.1 billion

dollars for the steam cycle MHTGR (492

percent higher than purchasing

irradiation services). All new reactor

alternatives have significant cost

uncertainties, which add from 1.5

billion dollars (small advanced HWR) to

3.7 billion dollars (large ALWR). The

APT has a mean cost of 5.1 billion

dollars (325 percent higher than

purchasing irradiation services) with

uncertainty adding approximately 2.7

billion dollars. The large uncertainties

create a substantial overlap in the cost

distributions of the alternatives, except

for the purchase of irradiation services.

For TPC (third column of Table 2), the

option to purchase irradiation services

has the lowest mean estimated TPC (0.5

billion dollars) with uncertainty adding

approximately 200 million dollars (95th

percentile above the mean). The option

to purchase an existing reactor has a

mean TPC of 1.7 billion dollars (240

percent higher than purchasing

irradiation services) with uncertainty

adding approximately 1.1 billion

dollars. The option to purchase a

partially complete commercial reactor

has a mean TPC of 1.9 billion dollars

(280 percent higher than purchasing

irradiation services) with uncertainty

adding 1.5 billion dollars. The new

reactor technology alternatives have

mean TPCs that range from 2.3 billion

dollars for the small ALWR (360 percent

higher than purchasing irradiation

services) to 4.5 billion dollars for the

steam cycle MHTGR (800 percent higher

than purchasing irradiation services).

All new reactor alternatives have

significant cost uncertainties, that add

from 1.4 billion dollars (small advanced

HWR) to 3.3 billion dollars (Direct Cycle

MHTGR). The APT has a mean TPC of

3.0 billion dollars (500 percent higher

than purchasing irradiation services)

with uncertainty adding approximately

2.5 billion dollars. The large

uncertainties create a substantial

overlap in the TPC distributions of the

alternatives, except for the purchase of

irradiation services.

The O&M costs make up the fourth

cost item (fourth column of Table 2).

The option to purchase irradiation

services has the lowest mean estimated

O&M cost (700 million dollars) with

uncertainty adding approximately 400

million dollars (95th percentile above

the mean). The option to purchase an

existing reactor has a mean O&M cost of

2.4 billion dollars (243 percent higher

than purchasing irradiation services)

with uncertainty adding approximately

800 million dollars. The option to

purchase a partially complete

commercial reactor has a mean O&M

cost of 2.5 billion dollars (257 percent

higher than purchasing irradiation

services) with uncertainty adding 1.3

billion dollars. The new reactor

technology alternatives have mean O&M

costs that range from 1.5 billion dollars

for the small advanced HWR (114

percent higher than purchasing

irradiation services) to 2.6 billion

dollars for the steam cycle MHTGR (271

percent higher than purchasing

irradiation services). All new reactor

alternatives have significant O&M cost

uncertainties, that add from 600 million

dollars (small Advance HWR) to 1.1

billion dollars (steam cycle MHTGR).

The APT has a mean O&M cost of 2.1

billion dollars (200 percent higher than

purchasing irradiation services) with

uncertainty adding approximately 800

million dollars. The large uncertainties

create a substantial overlap in the cost

distributions of the alternatives, except

for the purchase of irradiation services.

The costs of a multipurpose reactor

were analyzed separately from the

tritium supply alternatives. The

Department’s Fissile Materials

Disposition Office and an independent

contractor prepared separate estimates.

Different discount rates were used in the

reports, which also only identified the

minimum and maximum cost range.

The results of the independent analysis,

in discounted 1995 dollars are: (1) $4.5

billion to $14 billion for a governmentowned large ALWR, $2.9 billion to 8.6

billion for a small ALWR, and $2.7

billion to $9.9 billion for a commercial

reactor option; (2) $5.2 billion to $25.4

billion for a privatized large ALWR, $3.1

billion to $14 billion for a small ALWR,

and $1.9 billion to $11.3 billion for a

commercial reactor option. The result of

the Department’s analysis, in

discounted 1993 dollars, is: (1) For a
63888 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices

government-owned large ALWR costs

would range from $1.5 billion to $3.5

billion, and 2) for a privately financed

large ALWR costs would range from

$0.7 billion to $5.0 billion. These

amounts include revenue from

electricity sales.

In summary, the purchase of

irradiation services is the lowest cost in

all categories and has the lowest

uncertainty. The other commercial

options have the lowest cost estimates

for TLCC both with and without

revenues, and for TPC but with a higher

degree of uncertainty. The APT, small

ALWR, and small advanced HWR make

up a middle group with approximately

similar discounted mean costs for TLCC

without revenue, and TPC. The small

ALWR and small Advanced HWR have

smaller uncertainties than the APT in

both these categories. TLCC with

revenue shows the small ALWR to have

a lower mean cost than the APT or the

small advanced HWR and adds the large

ALWR to this middle group. The large

ALWR is in the higher mean cost group

for TLCC without revenue and for TPC,

along with the MHTGRs and HWR,

which also have higher uncertainties.

The O&M analysis shows that the

purchase of irradiation services has

clearly the lowest mean cost, with all

other alternatives grouped together. The

uncertainties for all the alternatives

generally have a substantial overlap in

their cost distributions.

Evaluation of Site Alternatives

The five sites for new tritium supply

and recycling facilities were evaluated

with respect to environmental impacts

and cost. Two criteria emerged as

discriminators: (1) Ability to handle

low-level radioactive waste; and (2)

cost. No siting analysis was needed for

the commercial reactor options, since

they all currently exist, and any reactor

ultimately selected would have to

undergo a separate NEPA review.

Numerous environmental impacts

were examined in the Final PEIS. The

analysis either showed very small or no

impacts, or the impacts did not

differentiate among sites including

cancer risks from a severe accident.

Impact differences are primarily due to

the differences in the size of the

population within 50 miles of the site.

Because cancer risk is low for all sites,

it is not a discriminator between sites.

The cost estimates for site alternatives

are published in the Technical

Reference Report.

The results of the evaluations are

summarized in Table 3 and described

below.

TABLE 3.—SITE EVALUATION

Criterion site

Ability to dispose of

wastes on

site

Cost of adding nonevaporative

cooling (reactors only)a

Percent adjustment to

base cost site (INEL) due

to site differences

Construction (percent)

Operation &

maintenance (percent)

INEL .............................................................................................................................. Yes .............. $86 to $208 . 0 0

NTS ............................................................................................................................... Yes .............. 99 to 239 ..... 5 15

ORR .............................................................................................................................. Yes .............. 0 .................. 5 0

PANTEX ........................................................................................................................ No ............... 98 to 239 ..... ¥10 15

SRS ............................................................................................................................... Yes .............. 0 .................. 0 10

a Mean discounted cost in millions of 1995 dollars, using a 4.9% annual discount rate.

1. Ability to Handle Wastes. As shown

in column 2 of Table 3, with the

exception of Pantex, all sites can

dispose of low level radioactive waste

on site. The wastes from Pantex would

be shipped to an approved off site low

level radioactive waste disposal facility.

2. Cost. The results of the cost

comparisons are shown in Table 3. Cost

differences among sites are determined

by three major factors:

(1) The cost for the non-evaporative

cooling system needed at sites which do

not have ample water availability (this

does not apply to the APT, which is not

designed to use non-evaporative

cooling),

(2) The percentage differential in

construction costs (primarily because of

labor rates), and

(3) The percentage differential in

operation and maintenance costs

(primarily because of labor and

electricity rates).

The third column of Table 3 shows

the range of additional costs due to the

need for non-evaporative dry cooling for

reactors at INEL, NTS, and Pantex. The

high end of these costs would occur for

the large ALWR.

The fourth and fifth columns of Table

3 show the percent increases in cost of

construction, and operation and

maintenance over the least expensive

site (INEL). For construction, Pantex

shows a decrease, SRS shows no

change, and NTS and ORR show small

increases. Operation and maintenance

costs are higher at NTS and Pantex than

INEL, with SRS higher than INEL but

less than NTS and Pantex. ORR shows

the same cost to INEL. These differences

are fairly small compared to the large

uncertainties in the actual costs of the

facilities.

Evaluation of Tritium Recycling

Alternatives

If a new supply facility is chosen at

INEL, NTS, ORR, or Pantex, the

alternatives are to build a new recycling

facility collocated with the supply

facility or to upgrade the SRS facility.

Constructing a new tritium recycling

facility (1.9 to 2.1 billion dollars) is

more expensive (between $500 million

and $750 million) than upgrading

existing tritium recycling facilities (1.3

billion) at SRS. The operational

environmental impacts would be

similar.

If a new supply facility is chosen at

SRS or if a commercial reactor option is

chosen, upgrading the existing tritium

recycling facility is the only option

considered, since building a new

recycling facility at another site is more

expensive and has no other advantages.

Cumulative Impacts

Impacts from the siting, construction,

and operation of new tritium supply

and recycling facilities would be

cumulative with impacts from existing

and planned facilities and actions at the

five candidate sites. The consequences

of each new tritium supply alternative

and recycling alternatives include the

cumulative effect of tritium supply and

recycling impacts and impacts from

existing, planned, and reasonably

foreseeable operations. Other more longterm impacts associated with the

Department’s proposed Environmental
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices 63889

Management Program and the Storage

and Disposition of Weapons-Usable

Fissile Materials Program are

speculative at this time but could

increase or decrease cumulative

impacts, depending on the decisions

resulting from the PEISs being prepared

for these programs and the time frame

of site-specific projects. Information on

potential waste management activities at

the candidate sites was included as

appropriate in the assessment of waste

management impacts in the Tritium

Supply and Recycling PEIS.

The Storage and Disposition PEIS

alternative of burning plutonium in a

reactor could result in increased

cumulative impacts at the candidate

sites if this Record of Decision selected

a new facility, and the Record of

Decision for the Storage and Disposition

PEIS selected a separate new reactor.

The impacts of combining tritium

production and plutonium disposition

in a single reactor, the multipurpose

reactor, were evaluated in the Tritium

Supply and Recycle PEIS. Cumulative

impacts from constructing two separate

reactors would approximately double

those presented for a single reactor in

the Tritium Supply and Recycling PEIS.

Cumulative impacts from construction

of a APT for tritium production and a

new reactor for plutonium disposition

would be represented by adding

together the APT and ALWR or MHTGR

impacts evaluated in the Tritium

Supply and Recycling PEIS. Cumulative

impacts would be minimized if tritium

production and plutonium disposition

were to take place in a single reactor.

The Environmentally Preferable

Alternative

The environmentally preferable

alternative is the alternative that would

cause the least impact to the physical

environment, and best protect worker

and public health.

With respect to all three decisions, the

no action alternative is the

environmentally preferable alternative.

Under the no action alternative, tritium

requirements to support the nuclear

weapons stockpile would continue to be

met by recovering residual tritium from

weapons components, purifying it, and

refilling weapons components. These

activities would be performed at the

Savannah River Site, the current

location of this function. However,

under the no action alternative, the

Department would not establish a new

tritium supply capability and the

Department would not meet future

stockpile requirements of tritium. This

would be contrary to the Department’s

mission as specified by the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Thus,

no action is not a reasonable alternative.

Of the alternatives that would satisfy

the Department’s mission, the potential

environmental impacts are generally

small and, except for the commercial

reactor options to purchase an existing

reactor or irradiation services, the

impacts are within the same range. The

Department considers the commercial

reactor options of purchasing an

existing reactor or irradiation services to

be the environmentally preferred

alternative.

Implementation of either of these

options would result in certain

environmental impacts. The

environmental impacts of construction

activities would be limited to any

support facilities that would be

required. Operation of the commercial

reactor options would have few

potential environmental impacts. No

additional spent fuel over and above

what the reactor(s) would otherwise

generate during their planned lifetime

would be generated, assuming that

operating scenarios do not change fuel

cycles. If fuel cycles were changed,

additional spent fuel would be

generated.

There are no environmental grounds

for discrimination among sites for the

tritium supply alternatives. Therefore,

the SRS is the environmentally

preferred site since impacts from

upgrading tritium recycling facilities are

less than building new facilities at any

of the other sites. Resource areas where

no major differences exist, or where

potential environmental impacts are

small are: land resources, air quality,

water resources, geology and soils,

biotic resources, socioeconomics, and

site infrastructure.

Comments on the PEIS and Related

Documents

Several comments were received on

the Final PEIS during the 30-day period

following the filing of the Final PEIS

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA). The EPA stated that all

of its specific comments on the Draft

PEIS had been adequately addressed in

the Final PEIS. A vendor for one of the

ALWRs commented that on the Final

PEIS did not adequately reflect the fact

that the electricity-producing reactor

options have an environmental benefit.

That is, construction of such a reactor

would offset the need to build and

operate an equivalent capacity of fossilfueled power plants, whereas the

accelerator would have an additional

environmental impact from a power

plant needed to provide electricity for

operating the accelerator.

The Final PEIS assessed the

environmental impacts associated with

providing power to the APT. Two

methods were assessed: (1) Purchasing

electricity from regional power pool

grids; and (2) building and operating a

dedicated power plant. If a new

dedicated power supply were

constructed, impacts would occur to air

resources, land use, soils, biotic

resources, and socioeconomics at the

construction site. Operation of a

dedicated power supply, or increased

electrical demand on the power pool

would result in increased impacts to air

resources, water resources, waste

management systems, and local traffic.

Impacts to land use, soils, waste

management systems, and biotic

resources could occur at the plant

location and along the transportation

system supplying the coal or gas to the

power plant. While these environmental

impacts were assessed, no decision

regarding a preferred source of power is

appropriate at this time. If an accelerator

were eventually built, the site-specific

NEPA review would more fully explore

the options of providing power to the

accelerator, and the appropriate

decision would be made at that time.

The environmental impacts that could

be avoided through the use of a

multipurpose reactor are discussed

qualitatively in the Final PEIS for both

the ALWR, MHTGR, and commercial

reactor alternatives. These impacts are

presented as part of the cumulative

impacts discussion in the previous

section.

Additional comments on the

Technical Reference Report and cost

analysis were also received from the

vendor for one of the ALWRs. The

vendor questioned the basis of the cost

estimate and the judgments used in

developing the uncertainties related to

schedule, production assurance, and

cost as presented in the Technical

Reference Report. The commentor

presented a revised set of assumptions

resulting in modifications to the cost

ranges for the large and small ALWRs,

APT and commercial reactor options.

The Department does not agree with

these assumptions. However, if these

assumptions were accepted

hypothetically, and applied consistently

and appropriately to each of the ALWR,

APT, and commercial reactor options,

the result would be to increase the cost

range of the purchase of irradiation

services and lower the cost ranges of all

other light water alternatives. Thus,

there still would be significant overlap

in the cost of these alternatives, and

there would be no effect on the

decisions presented in this Record of
63890 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices

Decision. The Department selected

experts knowledgeable in schedule, cost

or production assurance for the

assessment panels who did not stand to

gain from the results of the assessment.

In addition, each panel included experts

knowledgeable in the different

technologies and the mean results of

their combined judgments were used in

the uncertainty analysis.

The Department received on October

11, 1995, a Congressional report:

‘‘Getting On With Tritium Production: A

Report to Speaker Newt Gingrich’’. The

primary recommendation of the report

is that the Department base its selection

of a tritium production source on two

objectives: Maximizing the assurance

that tritium sources will be available

when needed and minimizing costs to

the taxpayers. The Department’s

acquisition strategy described in this

Record of Decision implements this

recommendation of the Congressional

report. Additional recommendations

related to insuring that the plutonium

disposition mission and the tritium

production mission be reviewed for

combining efforts to save money, and

the new reactor option must be

evaluated to the same level of detail as

the commercial reactor options. The

responsibility for tritium production

and fissile material disposition rests

with two separate offices in the

Department, the preparation of the

Tritium Supply and Recycle PEIS and

Technical Reference Report was closely

coordinated with the Office of Fissile

Materials Disposition. Therefore, the

option of using a reactor in a

multipurpose mode is analyzed in these

two documents and the factors relevant

to decision making are presented in this

Record of Decision. Due to the rapid

decay of tritium, and the long lead time

required to bring a new tritium source

on line, even supplies of tritium from

retired weapons are not sufficient to

postpone the need for a tritium supply

facility to the point where decisions

concerning technology and site

selection can be deferred. With regard to

equal evaluation, the Department

believes that the analysis completed to

date accomplishes this

recommendation. Cost considerations

associated with the reactor alternatives

point the decision toward existing

commercial reactors. Moreover, a new

reactor has no major schedule or

production advantage over an existing

reactor that would justify incurring the

additional cost and environmental

impacts associated with a new reactor.

A private group has recently

suggested that it purchase the Fast Flux

Test Facility (FFTF) from the

Department and that the Department

then contract with the private group to

make tritium at that facility. In the PEIS,

the use of FFTF was considered and

dismissed as a long-term tritium supply

option because the amount of tritium

that it could produce would only meet

a percentage of the steady state tritium

requirements, and it was not reasonable

to rely on operating the facility far

beyond the end of its design life.

However, the Department will evaluate

the presentation made by the private

group to determine whether the

operation of the FFTF might be able to

play any role in meeting future tritium

requirements. If any changes are

warranted to this Record of Decision

following that review, or further NEPA

documentation is required, the

Department will take appropriate action.

Decision

The Department is making three

simultaneous decisions regarding

tritium supply and recycling. First, the

Department will pursue a dual track on

the two most promising tritium supply

alternatives: (1) To initiate the purchase

of an existing commercial reactor

(operating or partially complete) or

irradiation services with an option to

purchase the reactor for conversion to a

defense facility; and (2) to design, build,

and test critical components of an

accelerator system for tritium

production. Within a three-year period,

the Department would select one of the

tracks to serve as the primary source of

tritium. The other alternative, if feasible,

would be developed as a back-up

tritium source. Second, the Savannah

River Site is selected as the location for

an accelerator, should one be built.

Third, the tritium recycling facilities at

Savannah River Site will be upgraded

and consolidated to support both of the

dual track options. A tritium extraction

facility will be constructed at Savannah

River Site. The basis for these decisions

is as follows.

Tritium Supply Decision: The options

of the commercial reactor alternative are

the best in terms of schedule,

production assurance and cost.

However, there are institutional issues

with these options that must be

resolved, or else the alternative can only

be used as a contingency.

Institutional issues regarding the use

of a commercial reactor(s) must be

resolved. Since commercial reactors are

already constructed and operating,

adding the tritium mission to an

existing reactor does not significantly

increase any existing environmental

impact. Using existing commercial

reactors offers the least expensive

approach. The purchase of irradiation

services presents the lowest cost and

has the lowest uncertainty. The

purchase of an existing or partially

completed commercial reactor has the

lowest capital and life cycle costs but a

greater degree of uncertainty than the

purchase of irradiation services.

Among the new facility alternatives,

the accelerator has the highest

probability to meet earlier production

requirements because of less regulatory

uncertainty. Among the new facility

alternatives, the accelerator also has the

least environmental impact because it

does not use fissile material, generates

no high-level wastes, and while the risk

from a severe accident is very small for

all of the alternatives, the risk for the

accelerator is the smallest. While all of

the components of the accelerator have

been proven, the entire system needs to

be demonstrated to assure the

components work together as a

complete system. From a cost

perspective, the APT is grouped with

the small ALWR and small advanced

HWR in a middle range of costs if

revenue is not taken into consideration.

There is significant overlap among the

alternatives, however. The two reactor

alternatives have a smaller uncertainty

than the APT. If revenue is included,

the small ALWR has a lower mean cost

than the APT and small advanced HWR.

Also the large ALWR is added to this

middle group. The Department has

confidence that as we optimize the

accelerator design over the next several

years, the resulting costs will fall within

the lower end of the cost range

presented in the Technical Reference

Report.

Based on the these considerations, the

Department will implement a dual

acquisition strategy that assures tritium

production for the nuclear stockpile

rapidly, cost-effectively, and safely. This

dual-track strategy for meeting tritium

supply requirements provides the

following advantages:

• Resolves major uncertainties over

the next three years, before selection of

the primary alternative;

• Selects the new facility that has the

lowest estimated environmental

impacts, an accelerator, and the

environmentally preferred alternative,

purchase of a existing commercial

reactor or irradiation services;

• Lessens programmatic risk because

it: 1) pursues two technically different

and independent approaches which

provide fall back in the event either

approach develops significant problems;

2) provides proven independent

capability to increase production; 3)

develops and protects contingency

capability to support requirements in

the event of a national emergency; 4)

selects a strategy that has the greatest
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices 63891

flexibility to meet production

requirements earlier than 2011, if

necessary, and 5) includes the least cost

option (irradiation services); and

• Preserves an option for

simultaneous reactor ‘‘burning’’ of

excess weapons plutonium, if the

Storage and Disposition of Weapons—

Usable Fissile Materials Record of

Decision selects reactor burning of that

material.

Site Decision: For the commercial

options, the potential sites are where

existing facilities are located. Selection

will be subject to a separate NEPA

analysis. For the APT, environmental

impacts and costs are not significant

discriminators. The Savannah River Site

will be the site for the APT, if one is

constructed, because it has the only

existing tritium recycling capability and

infrastructure of the candidate sites.

Tritium Recycling Decision:

Upgrading and consolidating the tritium

recycling facilities at the Savannah

River Site is the least expensive option

and avoids additional transportation of

tritium between sites if the APT is

constructed. Therefore, if the APT is the

primary source of tritium, the existing

tritium recycling facilities at Savannah

River Site will be consolidated and

upgraded. If one of the commercial

reactor options becomes the primary

source of tritium, the existing recycling

facilities at Savannah River Site will be

consolidated and upgraded, and a new

extraction facility will be constructed.

Issued in Washington D.C., December 5,

1995.

Hazel R. O’Leary,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30238 Filed 12–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P