[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46787-46790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22607]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: nepa@barms036.b-. 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
