[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63878-63891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30238]




[[Page 63877]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VII





Department of Energy





_______________________________________________________________________



Record of Decision; Tritium Supply and Recycling Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement; Notice

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

[[Page 63878]]


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 


[[Page 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 gas-cooled 
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 

[[Page 63880]]
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 Gas-Cooled 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 super-heated 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 gas-compression/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 

[[Page 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 multi-purpose 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 

[[Page 63882]]
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.

                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page 63883]]
                                           Table 1.--Schedule, Production Assurance, and Waste Discriminators                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Probability of                                                                                 
                                      Probability of   producing START I    Additional spent fuel generated per      Additional solid low level waste   
           Alternatives              delivering first    amounts in any              year (yd \3\/yr)                      generated (yd \3\/yr)        
                                      gas in 2011 <SUP>a         one year                                                                                    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action.........................  0                  0                  0.....................................  0                                     
APT...............................  0.76               0.77               0.....................................  57 <SUP>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 <SUP>b            0.79               <7 <SUP>f..................................  <5,200<SUP>f                               
Steam Cycle MHTGR.................  0.22               0.86               80....................................  1,300                                 
Direct Cycle MHTGR................  <0.14 <SUP>c            0.49               82....................................  <difference>1,300 <SUP>g                   
Purchase Existing CLWR............  >0.99 <SUP>d            >0.96              40....................................  160                                   
Purchase Partially Complete CLWR..  >0.99 <SUP>d            >0.96              Similar to Large ALWR.................  Similar to Large ALWR                 
Purchase Irradiation Services.....  >0.99 <SUP>d            >0.96              0 to 40 depending on number of          160                                   
                                                                           reactors used.                                                               
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a Includes technical, regulatory, and institutional delays.                                                                                             
<SUP>b Due to emerging state of technology longer delays than HWR assumed.                                                                                   
<SUP>c Probability without any delays is 0.14. Delay would reduce this probability.                                                                          
<SUP>d Assumes institutional questions are resolved.                                                                                                         
<SUP>e For Helium-3 target; 544 yd<SUP>3/yr for SILC target.                                                                                                      
<SUP>f No analysis completed, however, expected to be the same or less than the HWR.                                                                         
<SUP>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.

                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page 63884]]
                                                  Table 2.--Cost Evaluation Data at Savannah River Site                                                 
                                                              [In Billions of 1995 Dollars]                                                             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Total life cycle cost w/o     Total life cycle cost w/o       Total project  cost <SUP>a     Operations and maintenance <SUP>b
                                            revenue <SUP>a                     revenue <SUP>a          ------------------------------            costs <SUP>a          
          Alternatives           ------------------------------------------------------------                              -----------------------------
                                     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         0  
APT.............................      3.6        5.1       7.8       3.6       5.1       7.8       2.0       3.0       5.5       1.4       2.1       2.9
Large ALWR......................      1.3        3.7       7.6       4.8       6.5      10.2       2.4       4.0       7.2       1.9       2.5       3.3
Small ALWR......................      1.5        2.7       4.5       3.2       4.2       5.8       1.6       2.3       3.9       1.4       1.8       2.5
HWR.............................      4.3        5.8       8.1       4.3       5.8       8.1       2.6       3.8       6.4       1.4       2.0       2.9
Small Advanced HWR..............      2.9        4.2       5.7       2.9       4.2       5.7       1.8       2.7       4.1       0.9       1.5       2.1
Steam Cycle MHTGR...............      4.1        6.3       9.9       5.0       7.1      10.7       3.0       4.5       7.8       1.8       2.6       3.7
Direct Cycle MHTGR..............      3.0        5.0       8.3       4.2       6.0       9.5       2.5       4.1       7.4       1.4       1.9       2.6
Purchase existing CLWR..........      0.8        1.4       3.8       2.8       4.1       5.2       1.0       1.7       2.8       1.7       2.4       3.2
Purchase 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       3.8
Purchase 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 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a The 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.                      
<SUP>b Operations and maintenance costs include decontamination and decommissioning costs.                                                                   



[[Page 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 long-term 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 

[[Page 63886]]
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 helium-3 
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<SUP>-5 to 2.6x10<SUP>-7 at the SRS. The APT would have the 
lowest annual cancer risk (2.8x10<SUP>-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. 

[[Page 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 government-owned 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 

[[Page 63888]]
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                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Percent adjustment to  
                                                                                       base cost site (INEL) due
                                                                Cost of adding non-       to site differences   
           Criterion site             Ability to dispose of     evaporative cooling   --------------------------
                                          wastes on site          (reactors only)<SUP>a                   Operation &
                                                                                       Construction  maintenance
                                                                                         (percent)    (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 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>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 long-term impacts 
associated with the Department's proposed Environmental 

[[Page 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 fossil-fueled 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 

[[Page 63890]]
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:
    <bullet> Resolves major uncertainties over the next three years, 
before selection of the primary alternative;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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 

[[Page 63891]]
flexibility to meet production requirements earlier than 2011, if 
necessary, and 5) includes the least cost option (irradiation 
services); and
    <bullet> 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