CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Chapter 1 begins with a description of the Department of Energy's Tritium Supply and Recycling Proposal. This chapter also describes the Department of Energy's compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act for tritium supply and recycling, time periods considered in this analysis, and other Department of Energy National Environmental Policy Act documents that are currently being prepared or are in the planning phase. Chapter 1 includes discussions of the background of the Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Program, recent changes affecting the Reconfiguration Program, the specific alternatives analyzed in this document, the public participation process used to obtain public input on the issues addressed in the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, and the key changes made from the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The chapter concludes with the organization of the document. 1.1 The Tritium Supply and Recycling Proposal The Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to provide tritium supply and recycling facilities for the Nation's Nuclear Weapons Complex (Complex). Tritium, a man-made radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is an essential component of every warhead in the current and projected U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. These warheads depend on tritium to perform as designed. Tritium decays at 5.5percent per year and must be replaced periodically as long as the Nation relies on a nuclear deterrent. The Complex does not have the capability to produce the required amounts of tritium. Projections require that new tritium be available by approximately 2011. This Tritium Supply and Recycling Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) evaluates the siting, construction, and operation of tritium supply technology alternatives and recycling facilities at each of five candidate sites: the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), Nevada Test Site (NTS), Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), the Pantex Plant, and the Savannah River Site (SRS). This PEIS assesses the environmental impacts of all reasonable alternatives discussed below, including No Action. Tritium supply deals with the production of new tritium in either a reactor or an accelerator by irradiating target materials with neutrons and the subsequent extraction of the tritium in pure form for its use in nuclear weapons. Tritium recycling consists of recovering residual tritium from weapons components, purifying it, and refilling weapons components with both recovered and new tritium when it becomes available. Under No Action, DOE would not establish a new tritium supply capability. The current inventory of tritium would decay and DOE would not meet stockpile requirements of tritium. This would be contrary to DOE's mission as specified by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The current DOE missions assumed to continue under No Action are listed in section 3.3 for each candidate site. Alternatives for new tritium supply and recycling facilities consist of four different tritium supply technologies and five locations. The four technologies proposed to provide a new supply of tritium are Heavy Water Reactor (HWR), Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (MHTGR), Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR), and Accelerator Pro- duction of Tritium (APT). Both Large (1,300 MWe) and Small (600 MWe) options for the ALWR are evaluated as well as a phased approach for the APT. Also included as an alternative is the use of an existing commercial light water reactor that would be used for irradiation services or purchased and converted for tritium production. Additionally, this Tritium Supply and Recycling PEIS includes an assessment of the environmental impacts associated with using one or more commercial light water reactors for tritium production as a contingency in the event of a national emergency. Specific commercial reactors are not identified in this PEIS. This PEIS also addresses the environmental impacts of an ALWR, modular gas-cooled reactor or commercial light water reactor used as a multipurpose reactor. A multipurpose ("triple play") reactor is defined as one capable of producing tritium, "burning" plutonium, and generating revenues through the sale of electric power. 1.2 Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act for Tritium Supply and Recycling DOE intends to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for tritium supply and recycling in two phases. The first phase includes this PEIS and subsequent Record of Decision (ROD). The second phase includes site-specific NEPA documents that would be tiered from this PEIS. Decisions will be based on relevant factors including economic and technical considerations, DOE statutory mission requirements, and environmental impacts. As required by NEPA, this PEIS provides environmental analyses to support the ROD. In addition to the analysis in this PEIS, engineering studies will provide cost, schedule, and technical feasibility analyses for consideration in the ROD. These studies are presented in the Technical Reference Report. The programmatic decisions needed to plan for tritium supply and recycling focus on siting and technology. Project-level decisions would focus on construction and operation impacts and would be made after subsequent site-specific tiered NEPA reviews are completed. The ROD may include the following programmatic decisions: Whether to build new tritium supply and new or upgraded tritium recycling facilities; Where to locate new tritium supply and recycling facilities; and Which technologies to employ for tritium supply. The ROD will not include decisions regarding clean-up or waste management at phased-out facilities; the ultimate disposition of these facilities; or the long-term storage, treatment, and ultimate disposal of some wastes and spent fuel. These activities are being covered by separate NEPA documents (section 1.5). However, this PEIS does address the waste management implications of the alternatives considered to the extent needed to support programmatic decisions regarding the sites and technologies analyzed. The design goals of any new processes and facilities will include achieving, to the greatest extent practicable, pollution prevention and waste minimization. In addition, one of the design goals is to maximize the ease of ultimate decontamination and decommissioning (D&D). The ROD will identify the waste management implications on facility design for each of the alternatives and any future actions (including D&D). In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), DOE intends to "tier" site-specific environmental analyses from this PEIS for specific project proposals; therefore, subsequent proposed actions regarding specific facilities and their impacts are not analyzed in this PEIS. The "tiered" analyses and their related decision documents would be completed before project implementation could begin. 1.3 Time Period Considered in Analysis The Tritium Supply and Recycling Proposal would proceed in three phases. The first phase involves preparing information to support programmatic decisions on siting and technology. This includes preparing this PEIS and the associated ROD. During the second phase, DOE would develop detailed designs and meet project-specific NEPA requirements to implement the programmatic decisions. The third phase would involve constructing, testing, and certifying the selected tritium supply and recycling facilities, leading to full operation. Present planning, requires the tritium facilities to be fully operational by the year 2010 with new tritium available for use approximately 1 year later. The PEIS also includes analyses of providing tritium at an earlier date should that become necessary. Following this PEIS, DOE would develop a schedule for implementing the ROD decision. The schedule would be subject to change and include reassessments required by congressional authorizations and appropriations. Although the individual schedules of any activities or projects may overlap, the current uncertainty associated with any given activity or project requires that assumptions be made regarding the time periods used in this PEIS analysis. Because of the uncertainties associated with the scheduling of the second and third phases, this PEIS assumes an environmental baseline period for construction between 1999 and 2009, and an operational period of 40 years beginning in approximately 2010. Although the design life of the tritium supply and recycling facilities has not yet been determined by engineering studies, the assumption of an operational period of approximately 40 years is consistent with the operating periods used in prior DOE NEPA documents for similar new facilities. Project-level tiered NEPA documents would identify in detail the specific construction and operational periods for each project implemented. 1.4 Background The Complex is a set of interrelated facilities supporting the research, development, design, manufacture, testing, and maintenance of the Nation's nuclear weapons and the subsequent dismantlement of retired weapons. In the past, Complex facilities have produced large numbers of nuclear weapons from new components. However, due to substantial reduc- tions in the requirements for nuclear weapons, the Complex's current focus has shifted to weapon dismantlement, recycling nuclear materials used in building nuclear weapons, storing strategic materials for future use, and conducting surveillance and maintenance activities to ensure the continued reliability and safety of the weapons in the Nation's stockpile. The Complex consisted of 11 sites located in 10 states, as shown in figure 1.4-1. Hanford and INEL are currently not part of the Complex. Defense missions have been terminated at the Rocky Flats Plant, Mound Plant, and the Pinellas Plant. 1.4.1 Defense Program Mission As a matter of national policy, Congress declared in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that the development, use, and control of atomic energy shall be directed so as to make the maximum contribution to the general welfare, subject at all times to the paramount objective of making the maximum contribution to the common defense and security. In addition, Congress assigned the nuclear weapons manufacturing and stockpile sustainment role to the Atomic Energy Commission. Today that role resides with DOE. The size of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile is determined on a year-to-year basis. The Secretaries of Defense and Energy, in coordination with the Nuclear Weapons Council, jointly sign and submit the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum. The Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum transmits the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan to the President for final approval. The Plan covers an 11-year period, specifies the types and quantities of weapons required, and sets limits on the size and nature of stockpile changes that can be made without additional approval from the President. As such, the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan is the basis for all weapons planning in DOE. The President takes the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum under advisement each year and issues a National Security Directive to DOE and the Department of Defense (DOD) approving the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan for implementation. Figure 1.4.1-1 depicts the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum process. 1.4.2 Evolution of the Tritium Supply and Recycling Proposal The Tritium Supply and Recycling Proposal has evolved from the original Reconfiguration Program. The original reconfiguration concept, changes over time, and reasons for these changes are discussed in detail in the revised Implementation Plan (IP) for the Tritium Supply and Recycling PEIS and are outlined briefly below. A detailed discussion of the current tritium supply proposal follows. Figure 1.4.2-1 depicts the evolution of the Reconfiguration Program and the Tritium Supply and Recycling Proposal. Figure (Page 1-4) Figure 1.4-1.-Current and Former Nuclear Weapons Complex Sites. Figure (Page 1-5) Figure 1.4.1-1.-Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum Process. Figure (Page 1-6) Figure 1.4.2-1.-Evolution of the Reconfiguration Program, 1991-1995. The Complex is administered by the DOE Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs (DP) and consists of government-owned, contractor-operated facilities located at 11 sites around the country. Many of the facilities in the Complex were constructed more than four decades ago and will need repairs, upgrades, and/or modifications to meet current environment, safety, and health (ES&H) requirements. Additionally, many of the facilities were sized to meet stockpile requirements substantially larger and more diverse than current requirements or those expected in the future. Congress, recognizing that a comprehensive rather than a piecemeal approach was needed to address problems arising from an aging Complex, directed in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 1988 to 1989 (Public Law 100-180), that a study be conducted and a plan prepared by the President to modernize the Complex. The product of this study, titled the U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Complex Modernization Report (December 1988), was submitted to Congress on January 12, 1989. The report called for extensive modernization of facilities over a 15 to 20-year period. In September 1989, DOE established a Modernization Review Committee to review the assumptions and recommendations contained in the Modernization Report. Chaired by the Under Secretary, the committee was directed to reexamine the modernization issue and develop a program to address the issues already identified. In January 1991, this committee issued a report summarizing their findings. This study, entitled the Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Study (DOE/DP-0083), outlined a proposed future Complex and charted the course necessary to achieve the goal of modernization. It included a discussion of potential configurations of the future Complex, transitional activities, activities necessary for compliance with NEPA, and recommendations to improve management of the Complex. On February 11, 1991, DOE published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register (56 FR 5590) to prepare a PEIS, pursuant to NEPA, on reconfiguring the Complex. The NOI proposed to analyze the environmental impacts of the alternatives presented in the Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Study. In September 1991, the President made the first of three announcements involving significant reductions in the nuclear weapons stockpile. As a consequence of stockpile reductions, decreased demand for tritium, and an increased supply of recovered tritium from dismantled weapons, the urgency to develop a new tritium supply source was eased. Consequently, on November 1, 1991, DOE announced its decision to incorporate the environmental impact analysis for the DOE New Production Reactor Capacity Proposal into the Reconfiguration PEIS and include the new production reactor siting and technology decisions in the Reconfiguration ROD. This action added the programmatic analysis of tritium supply capacity into the Reconfiguration PEIS. The New Production Reactor Program was evaluating the potential environmental impacts of siting either an HWR, Light Water Reactor, or MHTGR at Hanford, INEL, or SRS. It also considered the No Action alternative of continuing tritium production at the K or L-Reactor at SRS. The New Production Reactor Program, which was subsequently deferred, provided engineering and design information for use in the Reconfiguration PEIS. In December 1991, the Secretary decided to separate the nonnuclear consolidation analysis, originally part of the Reconfiguration PEIS, from the nuclear analysis. The reasons for this included the potential for near-term, significant cost savings and the fact that nonnuclear consolidation decisions would neither affect nor be affected by the Reconfigurationdecisions. On January 27, 1992, DOE provided the public notice of its plans to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for its proposal to consolidate certain nonnuclear facilities in the Complex (57FR3046). These facilities manufacture nonnuclear parts required for nuclear weapons and perform regular testing of individual components. The Final EA was published on June 31, 1993 and a Finding of No Significant Impact was published in the Federal Register (58 FR 176) on September 14, 1993. Shortly thereafter, DOE began implementing the Nonnuclear Manufacturing Consolidation Program. This action has terminated the Complex mission at Mound, Pinellas, and Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (formerly known as Rocky Flats Plant). Activities previously performed at these facilities will be consolidated primarily at the Kansas City Plant, with the remaining activities being relocated to SRS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico. Further stockpile reductions, including the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) II Protocol, resulted in DOE reevaluating the Reconfiguration Program. On July 23, 1993, a revised NOI for the Reconfiguration PEIS was published in the Federal Register (58FR 39528). This NOI described DOE's vision of a much smaller and more highly integrated Complex than originally planned. Additionally, long-term storage options for plutonium and highly enriched uranium were added to this PEIS analysis. In this regard, the alternative of consolidated long-term storage facilities for plutonium and highly enriched uranium was added, since weapons retirements were occurring in larger numbers and at a faster rate than was ever envisioned. In addition, the components were not being recycled into new weapons, as they had been in the past. This situation placed increased importance on the stewardship of existing special nuclear materials. The Hanford Site was dropped and NTS was added as a candidate site for future weapons complex missions. DOE also added alternatives to consider upgrades and/or modifications to existing facilities to meet the reduced workload requirements while still complying with ES&H regulations. Upgrades and/or modifications were considered in addition to new facilities. The new facilities were downsized from previous plans and the option of integrating research, development, and testing activities into the plant designs and consideration of accelerator technology for the production of tritium were also added. In September and October 1993, DOE held a series of public scoping meetings following the issuance of the revised NOI. During the public scoping period, many members of the public questioned why DOE was proceeding to analyze new weapons facilities in general, and new component fabrication facilities in particular, given the lack of requirements for new weapons and an otherwise limited workload. There appeared to be a perception among many members of the public that the evaluation of new facilities in the PEIS indicated an intention to construct these facilities in a predetermined time frame. In addition, many members of the public commented that DOE should address alternatives for the disposition of plutonium that is excess to strategic needs, in addition to alternatives for long-term storage. DOE has concluded that the framework described in the Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Study does not exist today. Contributing factors to this conclusion include public comments at the September and October 1993 PEIS scoping meetings; the fact that no new nuclear weapons production is required for the foreseeable future; budget constraints; and DOE's decision to prepare a PEIS on long-term storage and disposition of weapons-usable fissile materials (59 FR 31985). As a result of these changed circumstances, DOE decided to separate the Reconfiguration PEIS into two PEISs: (1) the Tritium Supply and Recycling PEIS to address the need for tritium and (2) a Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS to address the rest of the Complex (59 FR 54175). 1.5 Other National Environmental Policy Act Reviews The Tritium Supply and Recycling PEIS has been coordinated with other NEPA documents. Programmatic NEPA documents currently in progress, recently completed, or in the planning phase are discussed in the following sections. 1.5.1 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement The Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS, which is currently being prepared, is analyzing alternatives for the Department to fulfill its responsibilities for ensuring the safety and reliability of the stockpile without underground nuclear testing. Stockpile stewardship includes activities required to maintain a high-level of confidence in the safety, reliability, and performance of nuclear weapons in the absence of underground testing and to be prepared to test weapons if directed by the President. Stockpile management activities include maintenance, evaluation, repair, or replacement of weapons in the existing stockpile. An NOI to prepare the Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS was published in the Federal Register (60 FR 31291) on June 14, 1995. Eight public scoping meetings were held around the country during June, July, and August 1995. The results of the scoping process and a discussion of the alternatives to be analyzed will be documented in the IP for the Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS expected to be published in October 1995. 1.5.2 Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement The Waste Management PEIS, which is currently being prepared, is analyzing alternatives for managing the safe disposal of radioactive, hazardous, and mixed (i.e. radioactive and hazardous) wastes. When completed, the PEIS will support DOE decisions on the management of processes or facilities for treatment, storage, or disposal of radioactive, hazardous, or mixed wastes. An NOI to prepare the Waste Management PEIS was published in the Federal Register (55 FR 42633) on October 22, 1990. The results of the scoping process, which included public scoping meetings and public workshops on the Draft IP, and a discussion of alternatives are documented in the Final IP for the Waste Management PEIS (DOE/EIS-0200) published in January 1994. The Draft PEIS was issued in September 1995. This PEIS addresses management of wastes and the facilities needed to accomplish an interim waste management mission in a manner that is consistent with future Environmental Management Program decisions. Additionally, this PEIS discusses ways to minimize waste generation during operation. The Waste Management PEIS is also addressing longer term management of wastes, including wastes that may be generated from long-term tritium supply and recycling activities. Many technologies required for the ultimate treatment and disposal of DOE wastes must still be developed. This is an even longer term effort and will follow decisions based on the Waste Management PEIS. Preparation of the PEISs has been closely coordinated to ensure that any cross-cutting issues are fully considered in the decision-making process. 1.5.3 Long-Term Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement The Long-Term Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials PEIS, which is currently being prepared, is analyzing alternatives for the long-term storage of weapons-usable fissile materials, and the disposition of weapons-usable fissile materials declared surplus to national defense needs by the President. One of the alternatives being analyzed would utilize surplus plutonium as a fuel in existing, modified, or new nuclear reactors. The tritium supply technologies analyzed in this PEIS have the potential to utilize surplus plutonium as a fuel. A discussion of disposing of plutonium in a new tritium supply facility is discussed in appendix A.3. An NOI to prepare the Long-Term Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials PEIS was published in the Federal Register (59 FR 31985) on June 21, 1994. The results of the scoping process, which included the public scoping workshops announced in the Federal Register (59 FR 36430) on July 18, 1994, and a discussion of the alternatives to be analyzed were documented in the IP for the Long-Term Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials PEIS (DOE/EIS-0229-IP) published in March 1995. 1.5.4 Site-Wide Environmental Support Statements Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Pantex Plant and Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapons Components. The Department is currently preparing the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Continued Operation of the Pantex Plant and Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapons Components. An amended NOI was issued on June 23, 1995, (60 FR 32661) which announced modification in the scope of this EIS concerning the proposed action and alternatives for some of the Pantex operations. One of the announced modifications was for the alternative addressing the possible relocation of some or all of the Pantex operations to one or more sites. The Pantex Site-Wide EIS is also analyzing alternatives to the interim storage of plutonium pits from disassembled weapons at Pantex pending decisions on their disposition. The Draft Site-Wide EIS for the Continued Operation of the Pantex Plant and Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapons Components is expected to be completed in December 1995. Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site. The Site-Wide EIS for NTS (59FR40897) August 10, 1994, which is expected to be released for public review in November 1995 evaluates resource management alternatives for NTS that would support current and future defense related missions, research and development, waste management, environmental restoration, infrastructure maintenance, and facility upgrades and alternative uses over the next 5 to 10years. The alternatives include: (1) No Action, continue existing missions and operations at the present level. No Action also includes the potential to resume underground nuclear testing and conducting other nuclear weapons related experiments at the site; (2) Expanded Use, which would maximize the use of NTS in support of national programs of both defense and nondefense nature. National Defense activities could include a resumption of underground nuclear testing with the required support activities; conducting other nuclear weapons related experiments; the construction and operation of various types of simulator facilities and other experimental test facilities; tritium production; plutonium storage and disposition; nuclear weapons storage and disassembly and similar activities that could be best conducted at a remote site; and (3) Other alternatives such as variations of the No Action alternative. 1.5.5 Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Environmental Impact Statement In the ROD (60 FR 28680) for the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management EIS, DOE decided to regionalize spent nuclear fuel management by fuel type at three sites: Hanford, INEL, and SRS. The regionalization strategy will result in the inventory of spent nuclear fuel (in metric tons of heavy metal) reaching 2,103 at Hanford, 426 at INEL, and 213 atSRS. 1.5.6 Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel DOE is preparing an EIS to evaluate the potential impacts of the adoption and implementation of a policy to accept foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel that contains uranium enriched in the United States. Under the proposed policy, the United States would accept approximately 24,300 fuel elements of highly enriched uranium or low-enriched uranium from foreign research reactors in approximately 30 nations during a 10 to 15-year period. The implementation of this policy would result in the receipt of spent nuclear fuel at one or more United States marine ports of entry and overland transport to one or more DOE sites. 1.6 Program Changes A number of significant program changes have occurred since publication of the Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Study and the original NOI (56 FR 5590) to prepare this PEIS. These changes include the following: Long-Term Storage for Special Nuclear Materials. Since the original Reconfiguration Proposal was published, a significant number of weapons have been and will continue to be retired from the Nation's active nuclear weapons stockpile. Previously, the stockpile reductions mandated that relatively few weapons would be retired without replacement. Therefore, when the original NOI and IP were prepared, the long-term storage of these materials was not a contemplated mission requirement since disassembled components would be recycled into new weapons. Presently, DOE does not have a long-term consolidated facility to store either plutonium or highly enriched uranium. Therefore, DOE is preparing the Long-Term Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials PEIS to address long-term storage of these materials. Siting Alternatives for Weapons Functions. In the original February 1992 IP for the Reconfiguration PEIS, Hanford, INEL, ORR, Pantex, and SRS were identified as reasonable alternative sites for the proposed reconfigured facilities. However, based upon reevaluation of the original proposal, DOE added NTS to this PEIS as a potential site for the tritium supply and recycling facilities. NTS is a large, remote site that meets the minimum qualification criteria (56 FR 5595) against which the other sites were evaluated, and it has a significant existing infrastructure that could accommodate these functions. Additionally, Hanford was eliminated as a candidate site for the future Complex because nuclear weapons production functions at that site have been terminated. The site is now dedicated to the DOE Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM) activities. Tritium Production. The New Production Reactor EIS was intended to assess Hanford, INEL, and SRS as alternative sites for new tritium supply. At the same time the decision was made to eliminate Hanford, NTS was added to the list as a candidate site for a new tritium supply. In addition, given the much smaller capacity needed to satisfy the tritium production requirements than originally contemplated, DOE concluded that ORR and Pantex constitute reasonable candidate sites for tritium supply and recycling facilities. Therefore, ORR and Pantex were added to the list of candidate sites for these facilities in this PEIS. Weapons Complex Mission Changes. Since the publication of the original NOI, there have been changes within the Complex that have affected the No Action alternative in this PEIS. Some functions that were previously performed at particular sites can no longer be performed in existing facilities at those sites. More specifically, the K-Reactor at SRS has been placed in cold standby with no planned provision for restart. This has effectively eliminated DOE's ability to produce tritium to support the projected stockpile requirements. Consequently, at some point the nuclear deterrent capability of the Nation would either be lost or based upon weapons which would be significantly different from those in the current stockpile. This capability would not meet present mission requirements. 1.7 Public Participation Public participation for the PEIS consisted of two primary activities: the scoping process and the public comment process. CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) require "an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a Proposed Action." This is usually called the public scoping process. Section 1.7.1 briefly describes the scoping process and major issues identified for analysis in the PEIS. 1.7.1 The Scoping Process Scoping for the Draft PEIS consisted of both internal DOE scoping and external public scoping. Internal DOE scoping began with expert working groups that produced the U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Modernization Report (December 1988) and the Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Study. External scoping began after DOE completed the Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Study and published an NOI in the Federal Register (56 FR 5590) on February 11, 1991. The original NOI public scoping phase, which included public meetings at potentially affected sites, ended September 30, 1991. The scoping process and results of the first NOI are discussed in detail in the February 1992 IP (DOE/EIS-0161IP). A revised NOI (58 FR 39528) was published on July 23, 1993, and addi- tional public scoping was conducted through October 29, 1993. A Notice was published in the Federal Register (59 FR 54175) on October 28, 1994, inviting public comment on the proposal to separate the Reconfiguration PEIS into two separate PEISs. Public scoping meetings for the revised NOI were conducted at 12 locations around the country to allow interested parties to present verbal comments and other information. All comments received through public scoping were organized and reviewed for consideration during the preparation of the revised IP and this PEIS. An extensive summary of all comments received during the public scoping process, along with the planned scope and content of this PEIS, was published in the revised IP (DOE/EIS-0161IPREV). 1.7.2 Public Comment Process on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement DOE's goal was to conduct the public comment process in a manner that encouraged discussion and mutual understanding of the NEPA process and the alternatives analyzed in the PEIS. After the Draft PEIS was published, a 60-day public comment period was held. Changes to this PEIS that resulted from public comments during this process are described in section 1.7.2.1. In February 1995, DOE published the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Tritium Supply and Recycling evaluating the siting, construction, and operation of tritium supply technology alternatives and recycling facilities at five candidate sites within the Complex. The 60-day public comment period for the Draft PEIS began on March 17, 1995, and ended on May 15, 1995. However, comments were accepted as late as June 23, 1995. During the comment period, public hearings were held in Washington, DC; Pocatello, ID; Las Vegas, NV; North Augusta, SC; Oak Ridge, TN; and Amarillo, TX. Two hearings were held at each location. In addition, the public was encouraged to provide comments via mail, fax, electronic bulletin board (Internet), and telephone (toll-free 800 number). Figure 1.7.2-1 shows the dates and locations of the hearings. Figure (Page 1-12) Figure 1.7.2-1.-Public Hearing Locations and Dates, 1995. In response to public comments and feedback critical of DOE's traditional courtroom-style hearing format, the public hearings held for the Draft PEIS were conducted using a new interactive format. The format chosen allowed for a two-way interaction between DOE and the public; increased public awareness and understanding on project-related impacts discussed in the Draft PEIS; and encouraged informed public input and comments on the document. Neutral facilitators were present at the hearings to direct and clarify dis- cussions and comments. All public hearing comment summaries were combined with comments received by mail, fax, Internet, or telephone during the public comment period. Volume III of this PEIS, the comment response document, describes the public comment process in detail, presents comment summaries and responses, and provides copies of all commentsreceived. 1.7.3 Major Comments Received on Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement During public review of the Draft PEIS a large number of the comments received regarded concerns that alternatives and/or candidate sites were not given the correct amount of consideration on factors including cost and technical feasibility. Although these concerns made up the majority of the comments, many others involved the resources analyzed, NEPA and regulatory issues, and DOE and Federal policies as they related to the PEIS. The major issues identified by commentors include the following: The electrical requirements of the various alternatives, particularly the APT, and the potential for the MHTGR and ALWR to produce electricity; The impacts of the alternatives on groundwater, including the potential for aquifer depletion and contamination and the consideration of the use of treated wastewater for cooling; The socioeconomic impacts, both positive and negative, of locating or failing to locate a facility at one of the candidate sites; The generation, storage, and disposal of radioactive and hazardous wastes (including spent nuclear fuel) and the associated risks; The impacts of the alternatives on human health (both from radiation and hazardous chemicals) and how these risks were determined and evaluated; The relationship of this PEIS to other DOE documents and programs, particularly the Waste Management PEIS and the Fissile Materials Disposition Program, and the need to make decisions based on all associated programs and activities concurrently; The need for decisions to be based on many different factors, including environmental, cost, and safety concerns; The failure of DOE to consider a no tritium or zero stockpile alternative, and the negative national and international implications of building a new tritium supply facility; and The need for DOE to consider a commercial reactor alternative in greater detail. Additionally, as a result of public comments, DOE published on August 25, 1995, a Notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 44327) to reopen the comment period for 21 days in order to solicit comments on the Department's intention to include in the PEIS the purchase of irradiation services from a commercial reactor as a reasonable alternative to produce tritium. During the extended comment period, there were two major issues of concern raised: License and regulatory implications; and Non-proliferation concerns. All of the comments identified above are summarized and responded to in detail in chapter 3 of volume III. Substantial revisions to the PEIS resulting from public comments are discussed below. Revisions in the Final PEIS include additional discussion and analysis in the following areas: severe accidents and design-basis accidents for all tritium supply technologies; site-specific environmental impacts of a dedicated power plant for the APT; revisions to water resources sections; site-specific analysis of the multipurpose reactor that could produce tritium, burn plutonium as fuel, and produce electricity; and the commercial reactor alternative, specifically the purchase of an existing reactor and the purchase of irradiation services for DOE target rods to produce tritium. Each of these areas is discussed in more detail in the following section. 1.7.4 Changes from the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement As a result of comments received on the Draft PEIS, several changes were incorporated into this PEIS. Revisions to the document include additional discussion and analysis in the following areas: severe accidents and design-basis accidents for all tritium supply technologies; site-specific environmental impacts of a dedicated power plant for the APT; revisions to water resources sections; site-specific analysis of the multipurpose reactor that could produce tritium, burn plutonium as fuel, and produce electricity; purchase of irradiation services from a commercial reactor; and analysis of producing tritium at an earlier date in order to support a larger stockpile size. Analysis of an ALWR design-basis accident was reevaluated as a result of public comments questioning the apparent severity and frequency of the accident consequences shown in the Draft PEIS. Additional analyses were performed to accurately estimate the impacts from a more reasonable design-basis accident and these results have been included in the Final PEIS in sections 4.1.3.9, 4.2.3.9, 4.3.3.9, 4.4.3.9, 4.5.3.9, 4.6.3.9, and appendix F.2.2.3. The analyses of impacts of severe reactor accidents, located in the Final PEIS sections 4.1.3.9, 4.2.3.9, 4.3.3.9, 4.4.3.9, 4.5.3.9, 4.6.3.9, and appendix F.2.1.3 was revised. Since accident consequences vary greatly depending on the selected frequency value, a spectrum of severe accidents with a range of frequencies was used to perform a more representative analysis for each technology. The resulting impacts presented in this section reflect the probable effects of a set of accidents for each reactor rather than the single accident scenario. Public comments also suggested that a disparity existed between the reactor and APT accident analyses, thereby creating a bias in favor of the APT. A new accident analysis presented in sections 4.1.3.9, 4.2.3.9, 4.3.3.9, 4.4.3.9, 4.5.3.9, 4.6.3.9, and appendix F.2.1.4 for the APT has a more severe initiating event, a lower frequency, and a higher consequence than the analysis presented in the Draft PEIS. Additionally, PEIS sections 4.1.3.9, 4.2.3.9, 4.3.3.9, 4.4.3.9, 4.5.3.9, 4.6.3.9, and appendix E.2 have been modified to include a qualitative discussion of impacts to involved workers (workers assigned to the facility and located in close proximity to the facility as a result of the proposed action) and quantitative impacts to noninvolved workers (workers collocated at the site independent of the proposed action). Another change in the document is a more detailed description in section 4.8.2 of potential impacts of a dedicated power plant for the APT. The section has been modified to indicate that site-specific impacts for the gas-fired power plant have been included for each site in sections 4.2 through 4.6. The discussion of the site-specific cumulative impacts on land use, air quality, water resources, biotics, socioeconomics, human health, and rail transport is presented within sections 4.2 through 4.6. Based on public comments received at the hearings, two revisions were incorporated in the water resources sections for NTS and Pantex. For NTS, section 4.3.2.4 incorporated more accurate recharge rates and information regarding the potential project use of the NTS aquifer to present a more accurate impact on groundwater resources. The new data were utilized to revise section 4.3.3.4 and provide more accurate potential environmental impacts to the NTS aquifer. For Pantex, section 4.5.2.4 has been modified to include additional information on reclaimed sanitary wastewater sources, the Hollywood Road Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Pantex Plant Wastewater Treatment Plant. Section 4.5.3.4 now includes the projected amount and availability of reclaimed water from each source and the impacts of using reclaimed sanitary wastewater as a source of tritium supply cooling water To present a more detailed analysis of the multipurpose reactor option, section 4.8.3 has been revised. Construction and operation impacts discussed in section 4.8.3.1 have been incorporated as additional discussion in the site-specific sections (sections 4.2 through 4.6) at the end of each affected resource section for a multipurpose ALWR and MHTGR. Additionally, as a result of public comments, DOE published on August 25, 1995 a Notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 44327) to include the purchase of irradiation services from a commercial reactor as a reasonable alternative. The Draft PEIS considered this an unreasonable alternative because of the long-standing policy of the United States that civilian nuclear facilities should not be utilized for military purpose and nonproliferation concerns. Nonetheless, the Draft PEIS included an evaluation of the environmental impacts of irradiation services using an existing commercial reactor to make tritium. Because of public comments on the Notice, public review of the Draft PEIS, and further consideration of nonproliferation issues, purchase of irradiation services is evaluated in the PEIS as a reasonable alternative. Revisions have also been made in chapter 3.4 and sections 4.10 of this PEIS to provide additional information and analysis on the commercial reactor alternative. Analysis and a discussion of potential impacts has been expanded and included in this PEIS on the alternative of DOE purchasing an existing operating commercial reactor or an incomplete reactor and converting it to production of tritium for defense purposes. A new section has also been added to the Final PEIS (section 4.11, providing tritium at an earlier date). The new section evaluates the potential impacts of providing tritium at an earlier date to support a higher stockpile level. The new section was added because a START II Treaty has not been ratified. 1.8 Organization of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement This PEIS is divided into three volumes. Volume I contains the summary and the main text and Volume II contains technical appendixes that provide supporting details for the analyses in Volume I along with additional project information. Volume III contains the comments received on the Draft PEIS during the public review period and the DOE responses. A PEIS executive summary which is more detailed than the summary contained in this PEIS is also available as a separate publication. Volume I contains the summary and 10 chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the Tritium Supply and Recycling Proposal and the approach to this PEIS. Chapter 2 presents the purpose of and need for the DOE's action. Chapter 3 describes the Tritium Supply and Recycling Proposal and alternatives. Chapter 4 includes discussions of the affected environment and environmental impacts of the alternatives, and chapter 5 contains environmental, occupational safety, and health permits and compliance requirements. The remaining chapters contain references; a list of preparers; a list of agencies, organizations, and persons to whom copies of this PEIS were sent; a glossary; and an index. Volume II contains nine appendixes of technical information in support of the environmental analyses presented in Volume I. These appendixes contain information on the following issues: nuclear facilities; air quality and acoustics; biotic resources; socioeconomics; human health; facility accidents; intersite transportation; environmental management; and summary comparison of environmental consequences of the tritium supply and recycling alternatives. Volume III (Comment Response Document) contains a description of the public hearing process; how the comment response document is organized and instructions for its use; a brief summary of changes to the Draft PEIS; and all comments received and DOEresponses. 1.9 Preparation of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement This PEIS has been prepared in accordance with Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and implemented by regulations promulgated by the CEQ (40 CFR 1500-1508) and as provided in the DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021). The organization of this document (as described in section 1.8) is consistent with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.10).
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
