Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation of an Accelerator for the Production of Tritium at the Savannah River Site

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for

the Construction and Operation of an Accelerator for the Production of

Tritium at the Savannah River Site

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to prepare

an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Construction and

Operation of an Accelerator for the Production of Tritium at the

Savannah River Site pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 USC 4321 et seq.). DOE intends to select

various options and a location on the Savannah River Site (SRS) for the

construction and operation of an accelerator to produce tritium to

support the nuclear weapons stockpile, as announced in the Record of

Decision for the Tritium Supply and Recycling Environmental Impact

Statement.

DOE has also decided to prepare an EIS for the Construction and

Operation of a Tritium Extraction Facility at the SRS. That EIS is the

subject of a separate Notice of Intent (NOI), but will have scoping

meetings concurrent with the Accelerator Production of Tritium (APT)

EIS scoping meetings.

DATES: Comments from the public and others will be accepted during the

scoping period, which will continue until November 1, 1996. Written

comments submitted by mail should be postmarked by that date to ensure

consideration. DOE will consider comments mailed after that date to the

extent practicable. DOE will conduct public scoping meetings to assist

in defining the appropriate scope of the EIS and identifying

significant environmental issues to be addressed. Meetings for the APT

EIS will be held concurrently with those of the Operation of the

Tritium Extraction Facility EIS, with separate workshops possible

depending on attendance levels. Notices of the dates, times, and

locations of the scoping meetings will be announced in the local media

at least 15 days before the meetings.

ADDRESSES: Please direct written comments or suggestions on the scope

of the EIS, requests to speak at the public scoping meetings, and

questions concerning the project to: Mr. Andrew R. Grainger, U.S.

Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box 5031,

Aiken, SC 29804-5031; phone 1-800-242-8269; or E-mail: [email protected]

r.com. Mark envelopes: ``Accelerator Production of Tritium EIS

Comments''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the DOE

NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office

of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585; telephone 202-586-

4600; or to leave a message at 1-800- 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SRS is an 800 square kilometer (300 square

mile) controlled access area located in southwestern South Carolina.

The Site is approximately 25 miles southeast of Augusta, Georgia, and

20 miles south of Aiken, South Carolina. Since its establishment, the

mission of SRS has been to produce nuclear materials that support the

defense, research, and medical programs of the United States.

With the end of the Cold War and the reduction in the size of the

U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, there is no longer a requirement to

produce new nuclear materials for defense purposes with the exception

of tritium. As a result, activities at SRS have shifted from nuclear

material production to cleanup and environmental restoration. All

production reactors are permanently shut down. However, a new source of

tritium is needed to support the nuclear weapons stockpile well into

the twenty-first century. Tritium has a relatively short half life

(12.3 years) and therefore must be periodically replenished in each

weapon in the stockpile.

The Department evaluated the programmatic need for a new tritium

source in a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for

Tritium Supply and Recycling (DOE/EIS-0161, October 1995). Based on the

findings in the PEIS and other technical, cost, and schedule

evaluations, the Department issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on

December 5, 1995 (60 FR 63877, December 12, 1995). In the ROD, the

Department decided to pursue a dual-track approach on the two most

promising tritium supply alternatives: (1) To initiate purchase of an

existing commercial reactor (operating or partially complete) for

conversion to a defense facility, or purchase of irradiation services

with an option to purchase the reactor; 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 these approaches to serve as the primary source of tritium. The

other alternative, if feasible, would continue to be developed as a

backup tritium source. SRS was selected as the location for an

accelerator, should one be built. Under the ROD, the tritium recycling

facilities at SRS would be upgraded and consolidated, and a tritium

extraction facility would be constructed at SRS to support both of the

dual-track options.

The Department's strategy for compliance with NEPA has been, first,

to make decisions on programmatic alternatives as described and

evaluated in the Tritium Supply and Recycling PEIS. This evaluation was

intended to

[[Page 46788]]

be followed by site-specific analyses to implement the selected

programmatic decisions. The decisions made in the December 5, 1995, ROD

have resulted in the Department proposing to prepare the following NEPA

documents:

1. An EIS for the Selection of One or More Commercial Light Water

Reactors for Tritium Production

2. An EIS for the Construction and Operation of an Accelerator for

the Production of Tritium at the Savannah River Site

3. An Environmental Assessment for the Tritium Facility

Modnerzation and Consolidation at the Savannah River Site

4. An EIS for the Construction and Operation of a Tritium

Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site

The EIS that is the subject of this NOI is the second of the proposed

NEPA documents listed above. The preparation of the EIS for

Construction and Operation of the Accelerator for Production of Tritium

supports the planning within the Department for a long-term supply of

tritium. However, the Department has not yet decided to actually build

the accelerator. As noted in the Record of Decision for the Tritium

Supply and Recycling PEIS, about three years of feasibility

demonstration research are needed before the Department will decide

whether the accelerator would be the lead (or backup) technology for

tritium production.

Accelerator Production of Tritium: Production of tritium in an

accelerator would occur through the following process: Protons are

produced in an injector by ionizing hydrogen atoms to form a proton

beam. The proton beam is initially accelerated by a series of radio-

frequency magnetic sectors to increase the proton beam to its final

speed of approximately 90% the speed of light. In each of these

sections, electrical energy is converted to microwave energy by

klystrons (a vacuum tube that converts electrical power into high power

microwaves). The proton beam is then expanded to distribute the protons

evenly across the face of a tungsten target. The proton beam strikes

the target, producing neutrons by a process called spallation.

Additional neutrons are produced and then slowed in a blanket assembly

composed of lead and water which surrounds the target. The blanket also

contains pipes with either helium-3 gas or solid lithium-6 aluminum

alloy targets that capture the neutrons to produce tritium. The tritium

is extracted continuously from the helium-3 in a co-located tritium

separation facility. The lithium-6 aluminum alloy targets must be

periodically removed and shipped to a nearby Tritium Extraction

Facility for batch removal of the tritium. The accelerator will be

designed with the capacity to produce up to 3 kilograms of tritium per

year.

The construction and operation impacts of the alternatives will be

examined in this EIS. The alternatives to be considered are

combinations of site location and technology options:

1. Site location options: An initial evaluation of the entire SRS

was made using four categories of disqualifying conditions: ecology,

human health, geology/hydrology, and engineering. This evaluation

identified those parts of the site where an APT could not be sited. A

footprint 2000 meters long and 500 meters wide (247 acres) was used to

identify potential locations. This size was considered conservative and

bounding. Once disqualified locations were identified, a second set of

screening criteria was used on the remaining candidates to evaluate the

suitability of each particular site, based on impact to twenty-one

factors: (1) Terrestrial ecology; (2) Aquatic ecology; (3) Wetland

ecology; (4) Distance to population centers; (5) Distance to SRS

boundary; (6) Impact of incidents at existing facilities on APT; (7)

Ability of groundwater to supply 6000 gpm (0.38 m3 /sec); (8)

Depth to groundwater; (9) Stability of subsurface conditions; (10)

Thermal capacity of soil; (11) Distance to the tritium loading

facility; (12) Distance to rail lines; (13) Archaeology; (14) Distance

to acceptable road; (15) Terrain; (16) Foundation conditions; (17)

Distance to NPDES discharge point; (18) Distance to site utilities;

(19) Distance to Centralized Sewage Treatment Plant tie-in; (20)

Disruption to site infrastructure; and (21) Presence of existing waste

site. Based on this evaluation scores were calculated and the potential

sites ranked, as described below:

Proposed Action: A site located 3 miles northeast of the Tritium

Loading Facility (TLF), formerly known as the Replacement Tritium

Facility (RTF) (Building 233-H in H-Area); ALTERNATIVE: a site located

2 miles northwest of the TLF. OTHER ALTERNATIVES, which were dismissed

from detailed analysis, included eight potential locations; these were

screened out in a siting study based on the 21 factors listed above.

2. Cooling water system options: PROPOSED ACTION: Mechanical draft

cooling towers with river water makeup. ALTERNATIVES: once-through

cooling using river water; mechanical draft cooling towers with

groundwater makeup; and use of the K-Reactor cooling tower with river

water makeup.

A study performed at SRS evaluated these four choices for cooling.

In some cases, parts of the existing River Water System would be used.

As described in the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement for Shutdown of the River Water System (61 FR 29744), some

portions of the River Water System could be placed in a higher state of

readiness than in ``layup'' condition, and could be restarted in a

relatively short period of time. The use of river water makeup to

mechanical draft cooling towers was used as the base case for

comparison and is the proposed cooling mechanism. Under this

alternative, major portions of the existing River Water System would be

upgraded or replaced with modern components. Approximately 6000 gpm

(0.38 m\3\/sec) of makeup water would be supplied to the cooling water

system to make up for losses due to blowdown and evaporation. Blowdown

would be directed to Par Pond.

With the second alternative, once-through cooling, approximately

125,000 gpm (7.88 m\3\/sec) of river water would flow through heat

exchangers and discharge to Par Pond. The third cooling water

alternative would use 6000 gpm (0.38 m\3\/sec) of groundwater makeup to

the cooling water system to make up for losses due to blowdown and

evaporation. This alternative would also use mechanical draft cooling

towers. Blowdown would be directed to Par Pond. The fourth cooling

water alternative would involve the existing K- Reactor natural draft

cooling tower. Approximately 125,000 gpm (7.88 m\3\/sec) of cooling

water would circulate from heat exchangers at the APT to the cooling

tower. This alternative would need 6000 gpm (0.38 m\3\/sec) of river

water makeup. Blowdown would be directed to Pen Branch, which flows

into the Savannah River.

Two cooling water alternatives were eliminated in the study. The

first was to use Par Pond as a source of once-through cooling water for

the APT. This alternative was eliminated based on cost and technical

uncertainty, due to the conditions of the components in the Par Pond

pump house. The second alternative dismissed was to construct a new

cooling pond to dissipate heat. Preliminary estimates of the size of

pond necessary to dissipate the heat indicated the need for a very

large pond, which would present permitting and environmental issues

greater than those under other alternatives.

[[Page 46789]]

3. Accelerator technology: PROPOSED ACTION: room temperature.

ALTERNATIVE: superconducting.

A room temperature accelerator has a higher demand for electricity

when compared to a superconducting accelerator. In an accelerator,

large currents are set up inside metal cavities, which in turn create

the electric fields that accelerate the proton beam. Energy losses

occur as a result of the internal resistance of the cavity material. In

a room temperature accelerator, these energy losses are significant. In

a superconducting accelerator, the cavities are cooled to the point

that resistance is negligible, thus minimizing the energy loss. A room

temperature accelerator by definition requires no special temperature

for operation, but a superconducting APT would require the construction

and operation of a cryogenic plant in the APT complex.

4. Target physics: PROPOSED ACTION: Blanket type: Helium-3.

ALTERNATIVE: Lithium-6 Aluminum alloy blanket.

The proposed blanket utilizes helium-3. Through neutron capture,

the helium-3 is converted to tritium, which can be extracted

continuously in the co-located tritium separations facility. The

lithium-6 aluminum alloy blanket through neutron capture converts

lithium to tritium and helium-4. The lithium-6 aluminum alloy is a

metal, which must be removed and the tritium extracted in a batch

process. This extraction would take place in the Tritium Extraction

Facility (TEF). The impacts of extraction will be discussed in the

separate EIS being prepared for the TEF.

5. Accelerator Power Source: PROPOSED ACTION: Radio frequency (RF)

power tube (klystron). ALTERNATIVE: Inductive-Output Tube (IOT).

A klystron is an evacuated electron-beam tube that is used as an

oscillator/amplifier in ultrahigh frequency circuits like television

transmitters and radar equipment. In the APT, klystrons are used as RF

power amplifiers to convert electric power to amplified RF (microwave)

power which in turn accelerates the protons. An IOT is an RF amplifier

currently under development. Its different design results in an

improved efficiency and lower electrical power requirements.

6. Electric power supply: PROPOSED ACTION: Existing sources.

ALTERNATIVE: a new power plant.

Because of the APT's power requirements (up to approximately 550

megawatts), the options for availability and reliability of the

electric power supply to the accelerator will be analyzed. The purchase

of power from South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) is the proposed

option. This option includes system upgrades, capacitor bank or an

additional 230 KV transmission line and a storage device, and use of an

open access strategy. A second option is the generation of 550

megawatts from a generic new fossil fuel generating plant at an unknown

location. This option would require a subsequent environmental analysis

to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, if

it is selected.

Proposed Action

DOE proposes to design a room temperature APT which is cooled using

mechanical draft cooling towers with river water to make up for losses.

Klystrons would supply the RF power, and helium-3 would capture

neutrons. The APT would be located at the proposed site (see above) and

would use existing sources of electricity.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

One alternative to the proposed action is not to select a

technology or site. This is the No Action alternative required by the

Council on Environmental Quality regulations. Under this alternative,

the stockpile demands for tritium would have to be met through other

means, such as the existing commercial reactor discussed above.

Other alternatives to the proposed action consist of any

combination of the above APT technologies and two sites. Because of the

large number of combinations, DOE will not explicitly describe the

impacts of each possible combination. However, the EIS will describe

the individual impacts of each option, and allow the reader to combine

effects from any desired combination. In addition, DOE will identify

the combination that has the most impact on the environment, thus

providing a bounding case for comparison.

Identification of Environmental and Other Issues

The Department has identified the following issues for analysis for

proposed and alternative actions in the EIS. Additional issues may be

identified as a result of the scoping process.

1. Public and Worker Safety, Health Risk Assessment: Radiological

and nonradiological impacts including projected effects on workers and

the public from construction, operation and accident conditions.

2. Impacts from releases to air, water, and soil.

3. Impacts to plants, animals, and habitat, including impacts to

wetlands, and threatened or endangered species and their habitat.

4. The consumption of natural resources and energy including water

and natural gas.

5. Socioeconomic impacts to affected communities from construction

and operation on labor forces and project purchases in the SRS area.

6. Environmental justice: Disproportionately high and adverse human

health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.

7. Impacts to cultural resources such as historic, archaeological,

scientific, or culturally important sites.

8. Compliance with all applicable Federal, state, and local

statutes and regulations; required Federal and state environmental

consultations and notifications; and DOE Orders on waste management,

waste minimization initiatives, and environmental protection.

9. Cumulative impacts from the proposed action and other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions at the SRS.

10. Potential irreversible and irretrievable commitments of

resources.

11. Pollution prevention and waste management practices, including

waste characterization, storage, treatment and disposal.

Public Scoping Process: DOE will conduct public scoping meetings to

assist in defining the appropriate scope of the EIS and to identify

significant environmental issues to be addressed. Because another EIS

for a separate tritium-related activity at SRS is commencing

simultaneously (the TEF; see the notice in today's Federal Register),

the public scoping meetings for the APT will be held concurrently with

the public scoping meetings for the TEF EIS. DOE will begin each

scoping meeting with an overview of tritium activities at SRS.

Following the initial presentation, DOE will hold workshops on the APT

and the TEF. These will either be separate workshops or a combined

workshop depending on attendance levels. There will be two sessions at

each meeting location. Copies of handouts from the meetings will be

available to those unable to attend by writing Mr. Grainger at the

address above, or by calling 1-800-242-8269.

Public notices on the dates, times, and locations of the scoping

meetings will be announced in the local media at least 15 days before

the meetings. DOE is committed to providing opportunities for the

involvement of interested individuals and groups in this and other DOE

planning activities.

The public, organizations, and agencies are invited to present oral

and

[[Page 46790]]

written comments concerning (1) the scope of the EIS, (2) the issues

the EIS should address, and (3) the alternatives the EIS should

analyze. Please address written comments to Mr. Grainger at the address

indicated above. These comments should be postmarked by November 1,

1996 to ensure full consideration.

Organizations and individuals wishing to participate in the public

meeting can call 1-800-242-8269 between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM Eastern

Time, Monday through Friday, or submit their requests to Mr. Grainger

at the address indicated above. DOE requests that anyone who wishes to

speak at the scoping meeting preregister by contacting Mr. Grainger,

either by phone or in writing. Preregistration should occur at least

two days before the designated meeting. Persons who have not

preregistered to speak may register at the meeting and will be called

on to speak as time permits.

Related Documentation: Completed and ongoing environmental reviews

both may affect the scope of this EIS. Background information is listed

below on past, present, and future activities at the Savannah River

Site.

Final Interim Management of Nuclear Materials Environmental Impact

Statement, DOE/EIS-0220, 1995. This EIS contains information on DOE

waste management activities which could be affected by APT waste

streams.

Final Savannah River Site Waste Management, DOE/EIS-0217, 1995.

This EIS contains information on SRS waste management activities which

could be affected by APT waste streams.

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Tritium

Supply and Recycling, DOE/DOE-0161, 1995. This PEIS presents a

programmatic environmental analysis of various ways to produce tritium,

including commercial light water reactors, and the APT technology,

including the location of an accelerator at SRS, if DOE decides to

proceed with the APT.

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile

Stewardship and Management, DOE/EIS-0236, February, 1996. The

cumulative analysis of the PEIS includes the impacts at the Savannah

River Site from the Tritium Supply and Recycling Programmatic EIS for

the construction of an accelerator, an upgraded tritium recycling

facility, and an extraction facility.

Environmental Assessment for the Natural Fluctuation of Water Level

In Par Pond and Reduced Water Flow In Steel Creek Below L Lake at the

Savannah River Site, DOE/EA-1070, 1995. This EA contains information on

PAR Pond, which could receive cooling water blowdown from some of the

cooling options examined for the APT.

Environmental Impact Statement for Shutdown of the River Water

System, DOE/EIS-0268 (in preparation; see 61 FR 29744).

Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation

of a Tritium Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site, (see

notice in today's Federal Register).

Environmental Assessment for the Tritium Facility Modernization and

Consolidation, (anticipated). The environmental assessment is to

include the impacts of modernizing and consolidating the existing

tritium recycling facilities at the Savannah River Site.

This information is available in the following two DOE public

reading rooms: DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, Room 1E-190,

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20585, phone 202-586-6020; and DOE Public Document Room, University of

South Carolina, Aiken Campus, University Library, 2nd Floor, 171

University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801, phone 803-648-6851.

Issued in Washington, D.C., this 29th day of August, 1996.

Peter N. Brush,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety, and Health.

[FR Doc. 96-22607 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P