CHAPTER 3: TRITIUM SUPPLY AND RECYCLING ALTERNATIVES Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the tritium supply and recycling alternatives for meeting the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile tritium supply requirements. This chapter begins with a summary of the development of the alternatives, followed by a description of these alternatives, and concludes with a summary comparison of the environmental impacts of the tritium supply and recycling alternatives. 3.1 Development of Tritium Supply and Recycling Alternatives Tritium is used in nuclear weapons to enhance their performance and to enable the design and production of smaller and more powerful weapons. Since the United States based its design of nuclear weapons on the use of tritium, an assured supply of this isotope is necessary to ensure that the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile is properly manufactured and maintained. Tritium has a relatively short radioactive half-life of 12.3 years, decaying at the rate of 5.5percent per year. Because of this radioactive decay, it must be replenished periodically in nuclear weapons so their effectiveness is preserved. Cur- rently, the Nuclear Weapons Complex (Complex) does not have the capability to produce the required amounts of tritium; the last tritium was produced in 1988. Without new production, the Nation's supply of tritium will decrease, through radioactive decay, to the point where the effectiveness of the nuclear weapons stockpile and a cornerstone of our Nation's defense policy, nuclear deterrence, would be lost. This Tritium Supply and Recycling Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with alternatives for the siting, construction, and operation of tritium supply and recycling facilities at each of five candidate sites. Also analyzed is the purchase by the Department of Energy (DOE) of an existing operating or partially completed commercial light water reactor and its conversion to tritium production for defense purposes. Production of tritium using irradiation services contracted from commercial power reactors is also analyzed as a reasonable alternative and as a potential contingency measure to meet the projected tritium requirements for the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile in the event of a national emergency. This PEIS assesses the environmental impacts of a range of reasonable alternatives, including No Action, in sufficient detail to allow for meaningful consideration of their comparative merits. This PEIS evaluates alternative tritium supply technologies against a baseline tritium requirement (i.e., a specific quantity of tritium, the exact amount of which is classified). Understanding the concept of the baseline tritium requirement is crucial to understanding the alternatives and the analysis in this PEIS. The baseline tritium requirement is the amount necessary to support the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan, which is approved by the President as discussed in section 1.1. In this PEIS, the baseline tritium requirement is approximately 3/8ths of the tritium requirement that was analyzed in the New Production Reactor Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) published in April 1991. This is the tritium requirement "baseline" which the tritium supply technologies must support, and against which they are assessed. This baseline tritium requirement is made up of two specific components: (1) a steady-state tritium requirement to make up for tritium lost through natural decay; and (2) a surge tritium requirement to replace any tritium which might be used in the event the Nation ever dipped into, or lost, its tritium reserve. The sizing of the surge capacity is based on the requirement set forth in the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan to reconstitute the entire reserve in a 5-year period. The steady-state component accounts for approximately 50 percent of the baseline tritium requirement, while the surge accounts for the remaining 50 percent. Tritium supply technologies being evaluated must be able to support the steadystate tritium requirement (a specific quantity of tritium every year), and make up for any lost tritiumreserves. Depending on the specific tritium supply technology, there may be two different ways to meet these requirements: (1) construct a tritium supply facility large enough to satisfy the entire baseline tritium requirement, operate that facility at a reduced level to meet the steady-state requirement, and increase the operating tempo up to baseline level if necessary; or (2) if sufficient flexibility exists, construct and operate a tritium supply facility that would satisfy the steady-state tritium requirement (approximately 50percent of the baseline tritium requirement), and be capable of adding capacity (adding modifications to the steady-state sized facility) in a timely enough fashion to meet the surge tritium requirements. This PEIS assesses alternatives for both cases. Tritium supply technologies representative of the first case are the Heavy Water Reactor (HWR), the Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (MHTGR), and the Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR) (Large and Small). Because the addition of capability for these reactors is not possible or would take more than 5years, they must be constructed to meet the entire baseline tritium requirement. The only new tritium supply technology representative of the second case is the Accelerator Production of Tritium (APT). The APT has the flexibility to be initially constructed to meet the steady-state tritium requirement and enhanced as necessary to meet the baseline tritium requirement. Additionally, the commercial light water reactor alternative has the flexibility to meet changing tritium requirements by purchasing additional reactors, or irradiation services, as needed. 3.1.1 Planning Assumptions and Basis for Analysis A number of planning assumptions and considerations form the basis of the analyses and impact assessments presented in this PEIS. These considerations and assumptions follow: The purpose of the Department's action is to produce the tritium needed to maintain the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. Best available design information is utilized to represent tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities being considered for construction at candidate sites. These facilities are briefly described in section 3.4 and are described in greater detail in appendix A. Design maturity of the tritium facilities varies greatly. For example, designs for some of the tritium supply technologies are more mature than others (e.g., HWR technology, a past effort from the New Production Reactor Program, is more mature than that of the APT). However, due to large reductions in estimated future requirements for tritium (resulting in a new requirement equal to approximately 40 percent of the baseline estimate represented in Environmental and other Evaluations of Alternatives for Siting, Constructing, and Operating New Production Reactor Capacity (DOE/NP0014)), even those designs have been downsized to meet reduced requirements. The technical feasibility of each of these alternate technologies is presented in the Tritium Supply and Recycling Plants Technical Reference Report. Construction and operational resource requirements are representative numbers only and may change slightly as more data become available. Sizing of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities is based upon the periodic requirement to replace tritium inventories lost to radioactive decay. Stockpile sizing projections have been developed jointly by the Department of Defense (DOD) and DOE. This process, which culminates in a Presidential directive, is described in section 1.1. These projections and related analyses take into account initiatives and agreements that have substantially reduced the required number of nuclear weapons. New facilities will be designed with the capacity to support tritium requirements for the projected stockpile and to make up the loss of tritium reserves within a 5-year period. An APT, with a reduced capacity, could initially be built to maintain tritium supply at a level which would support the projected stockpile, but which would have the capability, if necessary, to be modified to meet surge production requirements to reconstitute the tritium reserve. The steady-state component of this option accounts for approximately 50percent of the total tritium requirement, while the surge accounts for the remaining 50 percent. Under the No Action alternative, neither new tritium supply and recycling facilities nor modification/upgrading of the existing recycling facilities at the Savannah River Site (SRS) would be done. This alternative represents a reference condition for each site against which the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities can be compared. Under No Action, future stockpile tritium requirements would be supported as long as possible by recycling tritium from retired weapons. Eventually, tritium requirements could not be met. This PEIS does not attempt to identify specific locations on each site for any of the proposed tritium facilities; however, reference locations used to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities have been selected at each candidate site. These locations were designated by the individual sites and are consistent with their internal site development plans. These reference locations are designated as the tritium supply site (TSS) and would not interfere with Superfund sites. In general, undeveloped areas are used so that any potential environmental impacts would be greater than those projected for a developed location. These reference locations are defined for each site in sections 4.2 through 4.6. The characterization of the affected environment addresses the entire candidate site and the affected region surrounding each site. The region varies by resource, but generally extends to a 50-mile radius from the center of eachsite. The best available data were used to represent existing conditions at candidate sites in the Draft PEIS. In some cases, information that is several years old represented the best available data regarding design or upper-bound operating conditions of facilities that are now functioning at reduced capacities due to lower workload. Since annual environmental reports take up to a year and sometimes longer to be approved and published, the latest publicly available environmental monitoring and annual report data were used for the Draft PEIS. All candidate sites reviewed and updated, as appropriate, the affected environment sections to accurately describe the site and its environment. In preparing the Final PEIS, any updated information relating to the sites' affected environment was reviewed and appropriate changes were made if new information could potentially change results of the impact analyses. Both construction and operation impacts are considered for all resources at all sites. Construction impacts are generally short-term, while operation impacts are expected to be long-term. The period of construction for each alternative varies; however, for analytical purposes of the baseline case (START II), full operations are assumed to begin during the year 2010 and continue until the middle of the 21st century. The Phased APT for reduced tritium requirements would enable operations to begin during the year 2008 or earlier. For purposes of analysis, the representative years have been selected to portray key phases of the project and are as follows: 2005-representative year for peak construction activities, and 2010, 2030, and 2050-representative years for the beginning, middle, and end of the operations phase, respectively. An analysis of changes in impacts in the event tritium is needed before 2011 is included in section 4.11. Changes to the assumptions in performing this analysis are discussed in that section. Generated waste will be managed in accordance with applicable Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and requirements, as well as DOE's internal waste management requirements, including DOE's pollution prevention and waste minimization policy. A separate PEIS being prepared by the DOE Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM) will address waste management options for all DOE-gener- ated wastes. The Environmental Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0200) will address the treatment, storage, and disposal of radioactive, hazardous, and mixed wastes to include treatment technology application or development. Accordingly, an important consideration in planning for the tritium facilities would be to ensure that wastes can be safely packaged, stored, and transported in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements until viable treatment and disposal options are available. Baseline process technologies have been selected for tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities and are integral to the preconceptual designs. The design goals of all new facilities include consideration of waste minimization and pollution prevention to minimize facility and equipment contamination thereby making the future decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of these facilities as simple and inexpensive as feasible. The relative comparison of D&D activities and potential impacts between tritium supply technologies is presented in section 4.14. These impacts would be the subject of future tiered National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews when those facilities are proposed for retirement. The impacts associated with the storage of spent nuclear fuel generated from a new tritium supply facility are analyzed in this PEIS. Impacts presented are based on the management of this spent nuclear fuel at the generation site, either in pools or dry storage bins as appropriate for the type of fuel. Although the recently issued ROD (60 FR 28680) for the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management EIS outlines a Department-wide approach to the temporary storage of existing spent nuclear fuel at INEL and SRS, this analysis assumes that any spent nuclear fuel generated from a tritium supply facility would be stored on-site to preclude additional transportation to the ultimate disposition site for spent nuclear fuel. Eventually, the spent nuclear fuel would be packaged and transported to a site for ultimate disposition, such as a suitable repository. DOE presently is evaluating the Yucca Mountain Site in Nevada as a repository site, but no acceptance criteria have been established to date. Thus, this PEIS does not assess any long-term impacts associated with ultimate disposition of spent nuclear fuel in a repository because at the present time such impacts are too speculative. Low-level waste (LLW) will be disposed of onsite unless specifically prohibited or restricted. Mixed LLW would be stored in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-permitted facilities until treatment to Land Disposal Restriction requirements is available. Sanitary (e.g., sewage and industrial) wastewater would be treated onsite. Hazardous waste generated at the tritium supply and recycling facilities would be accumu- lated, packaged, shipped offsite to a commercial RCRA facility, and in some instances stored in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. This PEIS broadly analyzes the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of electrical distribution capacity for those reactors (MHTGR and ALWR) capable of generating electricity. Although the sale of steam for power or the generation of electricity is possible, the conditions of such a sale are highly uncertain. For a general discussion of such impacts, see section 4.8.1. Appropriate NEPA reviews would be conducted in connection with any future proposals for such sale. For electricity needs, particularly those of the APT, this PEIS assesses the availabil- ity of power from the regional power pools that service the various sites. Any additional capacity that would be required is identified. While electricity needs are foreseeable, the specific manner in which that need would be provided is uncertain, particularly with regard to the type of electrical facility, and its location within a regional power pool. It is likely that the electrical requirement would be met by facilities well away from the site itself, or as an option a dedicated power plant (for the APT) could potentially be constructed at a site. Thus, this PEIS assesses the impacts on the regional power pools of providing the required electricity for each tritium supply technology at each site. The site-specific impacts of a conceptual dedicated gas-fired power plant to support the APT is presented in sections 4.2 through 4.6. A generic discussion of the environmental effects to site infrastructure, air quality, water resources, biotic resources, socioeconomics, and waste management of supplying the APT with power from the regional power pool from a power plant is provided in section 4.8.2. Fuel for the ALWR technologies would be available for purchase from commercial sources. Enriched uranium to fabricate fuel for the HWR and MHTGR technologies would be available from existing sources. Facilities to fabricate fuel using this uranium are included as part of the design for these alternatives. The PEIS includes an analysis of trans- portation health risks of HEU to the potential tritium supply candidate sites. With the exception of the commercial irradiation services alternative, this PEIS presupposes that the United States Government would design, construct, and operate a new tritium supply facility at any of the five candidate sites. It is conceivable that private sources could design, construct, and operate a tritium supply facility at any of the same five sites and lease irradiation services to the government. In this case the environmental impacts would be the same as the corresponding alternatives evaluated in the PEIS. For alternatives involving the commercial light water reactor, the PEIS assesses the environmental impact of the changes resulting from the insertion of tritium production target rods into the reactor. These environmental impact changes would be above and additional to the normal environmental impacts of the ongoing operation of these reactors. Those ongoing environmental impacts are addressed in existing reactor specific environmental documents prepared by the NRC. The general impacts of a multipurpose MHTGR and ALWR and associated plutonium fuel processing and fabrication are described in section 4.8.3 of this PEIS. While that section describes a new ALWR operating in a multipurpose mode, that discussion is also applicable to the commercial reactor alternative. A commercial reactor could be used to make tritium, produce electricity, and burn plutonium as fuel. The environmental impacts associated with performing those missions would be similar to those described for the multipurpose ALWR. Throughout the document, references to and discussion of impacts for the multi- purpose ALWR can be applied to a multipurpose commercial reactor alternative. The site-specific impacts of the multipurpose reactor and support facilities are described for each of the five candidate sites in sections 4.2 through 4.6 for land use, geology and soils, water and biotic resources, socioeconomics, human health, and waste management. 3.1.2 Environmental Impact Analysis This PEIS evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with the tritium supply and recycling alternatives. For the reactors, this includes construction impacts of a full-sized facility, and operational impacts associated with producing the baseline tritium requirement (which is the greatest amount of tritium, and thus, the greatest operating tempo that might be required in any given year). This PEIS acknowledges that the reactors would likely produce less than the baseline tritium requirement (i.e., in most years, it would only be necessary to produce 50 percent of the baseline tritium requirement in order to support the steady-state tritium requirement). This PEIS also provides a discussion of differences, if any, in environmental impacts between the conservative baseline tritium requirement operating tempo and the steady-state tritium requirement operating tempo. However, since it is reasonably foreseeable that the reactors would be required to operate to support the baseline tritium requirement, this is the case that will be analyzed in the greatest detail. This case thus bounds the potential impacts associated with producing the steady-state tritium requirement. For the APT, which has the flexibility to be initially constructed to meet the steady-state tritium requirement and enhanced as necessary to meet the baseline tritium requirement, this PEIS assesses the construction impacts of a full-sized baseline facility because it is highly uncertain when additional capacity might be required. Thus, in order to bound the potential construction impacts, this PEIS assumes that all construction is performed during the same construction period even though it is likely the construction would be phased in. Operationally, using the same logic as that of the reactors, the impacts associated with producing the baseline tritium requirement are presented. The APT would likely be operated at less than the baseline tritium requirement (i.e., again, in most years, it would only be necessary to operate the facilities at 50 percent of the baseline tritium requirement in order to support the steady-state tritium requirement). This PEIS also provides a discussion of differences in environmental impacts between the conservative baseline tritium requirement operating tempo and the steady-state tritium requirement operating tempo. 3.1.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study By law, DOE is required to support the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan. In order to do this, DOE must maintain a nuclear weapons production, maintenance, and surveillance capacity consistent with the President's Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan. For the proposed action, the following alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed study for the reasons stated: Purchase Tritium From Foreign Sources. DOE has considered the purchase of tritium from other sources, including foreign nations. Conceptually, the purchase of tritium from foreign governments could fulfill the tritium requirement. However, while there is no national policy against purchase of defense materials from foreign sources, DOE has determined that the uncertainties associated with obtaining tritium from foreign sources render this alternative unreasonable for an assured long-term supply. Redesign of Weapons to Require Less or No Tritium. The nuclear warheads in the enduring stockpile were designed and built in an era when the tritium supply was assured, when underground nuclear testing was being conducted, and when military needs required that the warheads be optimized in terms of weight and volume. Replacing these warheads with new ones that would use little or no tritium for the sole reason of reducing overall tritium demand would be infeasible and unreasonable. Without underground nuclear testing to verify their safety and reliability, new warhead designs cannot deviate very far from current designs which require the use of tritium. Even with underground testing to facilitate new designs and a fully operational production complex, it would still take many years to build enough warheads to replace the enduring stockpile. Therefore, replacing the enduring stockpile of warheads with new designs would most likely take longer and could cost more than constructing and operating a new tritium supply facility. Because neither the President nor the Congress has proposed that the Government embark on a costly and expansive design, testing, and construction program solely to eliminate tritium requirements, weapons redesign to use less or no tritium is not a reasonable short or long-term alternative. Use of Existing Department of Energy Reactors or Accelerators. DOE (and its predecessor agencies) has designed, constructed, and operated many nuclear reactors over the past 50 years. The majority of these reactors were designed to assist in the development of nuclear research and safety standards development. DOE has also constructed nuclear reactors to produce the materials required to support the production and maintenance of nuclear weapons and has constructed nuclear reactors in support of the Naval Propulsion Program. Among the first experimental reactors were the water boiler at Los Alamos National Laboratory and CP-3 at Argonne National Laboratory-West, which were completed in 1944. Since then, numerous experimental and research reactors were constructed for a variety of purposes, including material tests, new reactor concepts, and safety experiments. Only four DOE research reactors are currently operational: The High Flux Isotope Reactor at Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR); the High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven National Laboratory; and the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II and the Advanced Test Reactor at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). In addition, there are some low power/critical facilities supporting medical research (at Brookhaven) and supporting reactor core configuration research (at Argonne National Laboratory-West at INEL). None of these facilities are large enough to produce the amount of tritium required to support the projected stockpile requirements. All are fully or partially committed to existing programs, and were con- structed in the early 1960s, rendering their design life reliability unsuitable for the timeframe required for a new, assured, long-term tritium supply facility. Of the existing DOE reactors that are currently not being operated, only one has the potential for producing any significant quantities of tritium: the Fast Flux Test Facility at the Hanford Site (Hanford). This facility was designed and constructed to perform materials research for the national liquid-metal breeder reactor program. This small (440-megawatt thermal (MWt)) experimental reactor, based on liquid-metal reactor technology, could, after substantial core and cooling system modifications, as well as target technology development, have the potential to supply a significant percentage of the steady state tritium requirement. The Fast Flux Test Facility, however, was designed in the late 1970s and began operation in 1980. The Fast Flux Test Facility is currently defueled. A technical study to extend the life of the Fast Flux Test Facility 10 years past its design 20-year lifetime has been completed. While technically possible to extend the lifetime, in the year 2010 the facility would be at the end of even the extended life. Relying on the ability to modify and operate Fast Flux Test Facility well into the middle of the next century is not a reasonable alternative. DOE also constructed and operated more than a dozen nuclear reactors for production of nuclear materials at SRS and Hanford, starting with the early part of the Manhattan Project during World War II. None of these reactors is currently operational. Of those reactors specifically designed to produce nuclear materials for the nuclear weapons program, the K-Reactor at SRS is the only remaining reactor which could be capable of returning to operation. It is presently in a "cold stand-by state" and has not been operated since 1988. The reactor was shut down for major environmental, safety, and health upgrades, to comply with today's stringent standards. DOE discontinued the K-Reactor Restart Program when the reduced need for tritium to support a smaller stockpile delayed the need for tritium. In this context, reliance upon the ability to upgrade and operate well into the middle of the next century a first generation reactor designed in the 1940s is not a reasonable alternative for new, long-term, assured tritium supply. DOE has been a world leader in the design and construction of particle accelerators, and currently operates six national facilities. Of the existing research accelerators, none is capable of producing significant quantities of tritium. The existing DOE research accelerators are all of the pulsed design and are only capable of producing low power accelerator beams in the 800 kilowatt (kW) range. A production accelerator facility, utilizing continuous wave operation, would be required to deliver a high power proton beam of 100 megawatt (MW) for tritium production. None of the existing research accelerators could be reasonably upgraded to meet the long-term, assured tritium requirements. Alternative Sites. Section 3.3.1 describes the process that was carried out to identify the range of reasonable site alternatives for the tritium supply and recycling facilities that are considered in this PEIS. The process of determining these reasonable tritium supply alternative sites has been evolutionary, starting with the engineering studies and criteria developed by the New Production Reactor program, then utilizing additional criteria and considerations from the Reconfiguration Program, information related to changing missions at DOE sites, and input from public scoping. During the preparation of this PEIS, the Department has continued to assess other alternative sites. In fact, once the APT was added as a potential tritium supply technology, an assessment was conducted to determine if the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which operates a linear accelerator and is the home of significant accelerator expertise, would be a reasonable site for a tritium producing accelerator. The APT conceptual designs for tritium supply have established that evaporative cooling towers would be used to dissipate the heat generated in the tritium target assemblies and in the accelerator facility. These APT cooling water requirements are significantly greater than the current regulated allotment of water for Los Alamos National Laboratory. Increasing the allotment to support the APT water requirement would be impractical and infeasible, and in any event beyond DOE's control. It may be possible that an APT could use nonevaporative cooling towers, which would greatly reduce the water requirements. However, there is sufficient technical uncertainty regarding the feasibility and practicality of using nonevaporative cooling towers for a continuous wave APT to render this option unacceptable as a source for the Nation's only supply of tritium. The other five sites being analyzed in this PEIS could reasonably support the water requirements of the APT using evaporative cooling towers and, thus, would not incur the technical uncertainty and risk of Los Alamos National Laboratory. Thus, DOE has concluded that Los Alamos National Laboratory is not a reasonable site for an accelerator to produce tritium (LA DOE 1994a:1). REDUCED TRITIUM REQUIREMENTS As discussed in chapter 2, the need for new tritium supply is based on the 1994 Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan, which projects a need for new tritium by approximately 2011 based on a START II level stockpile size of approximately 3,500 accountable weapons. A smaller than START II stockpile size would extend the need date for new tritium beyond approximately 2011. If the need date for new tritium were significantly later than 2011, the Department would not have a proposal for new tritium supply, and would not be preparing a PEIS for Tritium Supply and Recycling. 3.2 Tritium Supply and Recycling Alternatives This PEIS evaluates the environmental impacts associated with alternatives for only one functional area of the nuclear element of the Complex: tritium supply and recycling. The nonnuclear element of the Complex has already been evaluated in the Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment (EA) Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Program (DOE/EA-0792). The specific alternatives evaluated in this Tritium Supply and Recycling PEIS are presented in figure 3.2-1 and explained in section 3.2.2. The remaining elements of the Complex, other than tritium supply and recycling, will be covered in the new Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS described in section 1.5.1. 3.2.1 No Action To satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA), No Action is presented for comparison with the action alternatives. 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. Sites would continue waste management programs to meet the legal requirements and commitments in formal agreements and would proceed with cleanup activities. Production facilities and support roles at specific sites, however, would be downsized or eliminated in accordance with the reduced workload projected for the year 2010 and beyond. The current DOE missions assumed to continue under No Action are listed in section 3.3 for each candidate site. Figure (Page 3-9) Figure 3.2-1.-Tritium Supply and Recycling Alternatives. 3.2.2 Tritium Supply and Recycling The four technologies considered as a new supply of tritium include: HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and APT. Both Large (1,300 MWe) and Small (600 MWe) options for the ALWR and a phased option for the APT are evaluated. This PEIS includes an analysis of the MHTGR and ALWR technologies for tritium production together with plutonium disposition and steam/electricity production. Also included is the use of commercial light water reactors to irradiate tritium target rods. Descriptions of these technologies and their options are provided in section 3.4. The five candidate sites evaluated for such a facility are INEL, the Nevada Test Site (NTS), ORR, the Pantex Plant, and SRS. Descriptions of specific sites are given in section 3.3. This PEIS provides environmental analyses to support a decision to select both the tritium supply technology and the location of the tritium supply and recycling facilities. If the tritium supply facility is located at any site other than SRS, the tritium recycling function could be provided either by collocating a new tritium recycling facility at that site or by the upgraded tritium recycling facilities at SRS. If the new tritium supply facility is located at SRS, it would utilize upgraded recycling facilities at SRS. As shown in figure 3.2-1, the following alternatives for tritium supply and recycling are analyzed. HWR and New Recycling Facility-Col-location of an HWR for tritium supply and a new tritium recycling facility at either INEL, NTS, ORR, or Pantex. Tritium recycling facilities at SRS would be phased out if any of these alternatives were chosen. HWR and Recycling Facilities Upgrade-Location of an HWR for tritium supply at any of the five candidate sites. The Replacement Tritium Facility and other support facilities at SRS would be upgraded for tritium recycling. MHTGR and New Recycling Facility-Collocation of an MHTGR for tritium supply and a new tritium recycling facility at either INEL, NTS, ORR, or Pantex. Tritium recycling facilities at SRS would be phased out if any of these alternatives are chosen. MHTGR and Recycling Facilities Upgrade-Location of an MHTGR for tritium supply at any of the five candidate sites. The Replacement Tritium Facility and other support facilities at SRS would be upgraded for tritium recycling. ALWR and New Recycling Facility-Collocation of an ALWR for tritium supply and new tritium recycling facilities at either INEL, NTS, ORR, or Pantex. Both large and small reactor options are evaluated at each site. Tritium recycling facilities at SRS would be phased out if any of these alternatives are chosen. ALWR and Recycling Facilities Upgrade-Location of an ALWR for tritium supply at any of the five candidate sites. Both large and small reactor options are evaluated at each site. The Replacement Tritium Facility and other support facilities at SRS would be upgraded for tritium recycling. APT and New Recycling Facility-Col-location of an APT for tritium supply and a new tritium recycling facility at either INEL, NTS, ORR, or Pantex. The Phased APT option, described in section 3.4.2.4 and appendix section A.2.1.4, is evaluated for less than baseline operations. Tritium recycling facilities at SRS would be phased out if any of these alternatives are chosen. APT and Recycling Facilities Upgrade-Location of an APT for tritium supply at any of the five candidate sites. The Phased APT option is evaluated for less than baseline operations. The Replacement Tritium Facility and other support facilities at SRS would be upgraded for tritium recycling. Commercial Light Water Reactor-Purchase of an existing operating or partially completed commercial light water reactor by DOE and conversion to tritium production for defense purposes or purchase of irradiation services contracted from commercial power reactors. The Replacement Tritium Facility and other support facilities at SRS would be upgraded for tritium recycling. In addition, facilities for tritium extraction and fabrication of tritium targets would be constructed. 3.2.3 Other Missions Beyond Tritium Production Tritium production is the only mission addressed in this PEIS, although it is possible that some of the tritium supply technology alternatives would be capable of performing missions other than tritium production. Two such examples are plutonium disposition and steam/electricity production. As discussed in section 1.5.3, alternatives for plutonium disposition are being assessed in the Long-Term Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials PEIS. Nonetheless, this PEIS includes an analysis of the option of utilizing the MHTGR and ALWR technologies for tritium production together with plutonium disposition and steam/electricity production. 3.3 Candidate Sites Five locations (INEL, NTS, ORR, Pantex, and SRS) are being considered as candidate sites for the tritium supply and recycling facilities. All of these sites, with the exception of INEL, are currently performing defense program activities. For the commercial light water reactor alternatives, no specific site has been identified. Therefore, any one of the existing operating commercial reactors or partially completed reactors is a potential candidate site for the tritium supply mission. Currently 109commercial nuclear power plants are located at 71 sites in 32 of the contiguous states. Of these, 57 sites are located east of the Mississippi River. Approximately one-half of these 71 sites contain two or three nuclear units per site. 3.3.1 Site Selection As shown in figure 3.3.1-1, in mid-1988, at the onset of the New Production Reactor Program, 13 DOE-owned sites were considered as potential locations for deployment of a new production reactor. All sites were evaluated against basic screening criteria and only three, Hanford, INEL and SRS, satisfied the criteria. These three sites were further evaluated by a DOE Site Evaluation Panel against more stringent criteria and were found to be suitable for a new production reactor. A detailed discussion of this selection process is described in the Implementation Plan for the New Production Reactor Capacity Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/NP-0003). Concurrent with the publication in the Federal Register (56 FR 5590) on February 11, 1991, of the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a PEIS for Reconfiguration of the Nuclear Weapons Complex, a Notice of Availability of an Invitation for Site Proposals for the Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Site was also published (56 FR 5595). The invitation solicited proposals for consideration of non-DOE sites and listed five DOE sites which met the initial screening criteria. No additional locations were identified as a result of this invitation.Subsequent evaluation by the Site Evaluation Panel of the DOE sites found them to be fully qualified. These five initial sites were Hanford, INEL, ORR, Pantex, and SRS. On November 1, 1991, the then Secretary of Energy announced his decision to incorporate the New Production Reactor environmental analysis into the Reconfiguration PEIS. On November 29, 1991, DOE published a Notice of Opportunity for public comment on this issue (56 FR 60985). The New Production Reactor Program had been evaluating the siting of either a HWR, Light Water Reactor, or MHTGR technology at either Hanford, INEL, or SRS to provide new tritium supply capability for the Complex. In light of the reduced requirements resulting from the President's initiative to downsize the nuclear weapons stockpile, the tritium production requirement was reduced. This reduction permitted the addition to the Reconfiguration PEIS of the option of producing tritium using a linear accelerator and of downsizing the three reactor technologies to the new goal quantities. The two reconfiguration sites, ORR and Pantex, previously rejected as candidate sites for a New Production Reactor, were then evaluated using 10 CFR 100 reactor siting criteria and found to be acceptable for the downsized reactors. Figure (Page 3-12) Figure 3.3.1-1.-Site Selection Process. A Revised NOI to prepare a PEIS was published in the Federal Register (58FR39528) on July 23, 1993. In this notice, DOE eliminated Hanford from further consideration as a candidate site because all nuclear weapons production functions at that location had been terminated and it was dedicated to environmental and waste management activities. NTS was evaluated using the siting criteria described above and was determined to be a reasonable site alternative for new tritium supply and recycling facilities. The resulting five sites, INEL, NTS, ORR, Pantex, and SRS, are described in the following sections. 3.3.2 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory INEL, located on approximately 570,000 acres near Idaho Falls, ID, was established in 1949 to build, test, and operate various types of nuclear facilities. This site is one of DOE's principal centers for conducting nuclear energy research and providing support to the U.S. Navy nuclear fleet. It has the world's largest and most varied collection of reactors, including research, testing, power, and ship propulsion reactors. There have been 52 research and test reactors at INEL that have been used over the years to test fuel and target design, reactor systems, and overall safety. Currently, there are four reactors in use, three of which are in continuous operation. In addition to its nuclear reactor research, other INEL facilities are operated to support reactor operations. These facilities include high-level waste (HLW) and LLW processing and storage sites; hot cells; analytical laboratories; machine shops; laundry; railroad; and administrative facilities. Other activities include management of one of DOE's largest storage sites for the LLW and transuranic (TRU) waste generated by defense program activities. Until 1992, spent reactor fuels were reprocessed at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant to recover enriched uranium and other isotopes. Due to a DOE decision to terminate spent fuel reprocessing, the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant was transferred to the EM Program for disposition. There are currently no defense program activities at INEL. DOE activities at INEL have been divided among nine distinct and geographically separate functional mission areas as listed in table 3.3.2-1. The current functions can be further grouped into the following two major categories, environmental management activities and other DOE activities. Environmental Management Activities. Environmental management performs research and development activities for waste processing at the Power Burst Facility and provides waste management expertise to the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. The Power Burst Facility supports facilities for research and development for waste reduction programs and the Boron Neutron Capture Therapy Program. Waste management efforts at INEL are directed toward safe and environmentally sound treatment, storage, and disposal of radioactive, hazardous, and sanitary waste generated from facility operations. Details of environ- mental management activities are discussed in section 4.2.2.10 and appendix H. A reactor used for thermal fuels behavior studies is now in a standby mode. Major waste management facilities include the waste engineering development facility, the waste experimental reduction facility, and the mixed waste storage facility. Table 3.3.2-1.-Current Missions at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Mission Description Sponsor Idaho Chemical Transferred to management of EM. Assistant Secretary for Processing Plant Environmental Management Radioactive Waste Provide waste management functions for Assistant Secretary for Management Complex present and future site and department Environmental Management needs. Power Burst Area Perform waste processing, technology Assistant Secretary for research, and development. Provide Environmental Management interim storage for hazardous wastes. Test Area North Perform research on reactor safety Office of Nuclear Energy operations and conduct a specific manufacturing capability project. Auxiliary Reactor Area Perform materials testing and Office of Nuclear Energy environmental monitoring. Argonne National Perform breeder reactor irradiation tests. Office of Nuclear Energy Laboratory-West Test Reactor Area Perform irradiation service, develop nuclear Office of Nuclear Energy; instruments, conduct safety programs, and Office of Naval Reactors perform geological research. Develop methods to meet radioactive release limits. Naval Reactors Facility Standby facility for conducting ship Office of Naval Reactors propulsion reactor research and training. Central Facilities Area Provide centralized support services for Idaho Operations Office the site. Other Department of Energy Activities. The following six additional DOE activities are located at INEL: The Test Area North complex is the northernmost facility within INEL and consists of several experimental reactors and support facilities conducting research and development activities on reactor performance. These include the technical support facility, the containment test facility, the water reactor research test facility, and the inertial engine test facility. The inertial engine test facility has been abandoned, and no future programs are planned. The remaining facilities support ongoing programs that are expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Materials testing and environmental monitoring activities are conducted in the Auxiliary Reactor Area. The facilities in this area are scheduled for D&D. Argonne National Laboratory-West supports breeder reactor development and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) test program, as well as stores plutonium for the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy. The Test Reactor Area supports the Advanced Test Reactor. This reactor is used for irradiation testing of reactor fuels and material properties; instrumentation for naval reactors; and production of radioisotopes in support of nuclear medicine, industrial applications, research, and product sterilization. Wastes from this facility are handled by the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. The Naval Reactors Facility is operated for DOE and the U.S. Navy by Westinghouse Electric Corporation under jurisdiction of DOE's Pittsburgh Naval Reactors Office. Included at this facility are the submarine prototypes and the expended core facility. Activities include the testing of advanced design equipment and new systems for current naval nuclear power propulsion plants and obtaining data for future design. Additionally, the facilities are used to provide a comprehensive nuclear plant operational training program for naval personnel. DOD plans to shut down older prototype reactors, leaving operational only the most modern prototype reactors and Expended Core Facility. The mission of the Central Facilities Area is to provide effective, site-wide support services including transportation, shop services, health services, radiation monitoring, and administrative offices. Non-Department of Energy Activities. Non-DOE activities at INEL include research being conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and various institutions of higher learning. These activities support the designation of INEL as a National Environmental Research Park. Environmental Regulatory Setting. The Department is working with Federal and state regulatory authorities to address compliance and cleanup obligations arising from its past operations at INEL. The Department is engaged in several activities to bring its operations into full regulatory compliance. These activities are set forth in negotiated agreements that contain schedules for achieving compliance with applicable requirements, and financial penalties for nonachievement of agreed upon milestones. A brief description of the environmental regulatory setting at INEL follows. More detail is available in appendix section A.1.1. The State of Idaho has regulatory authority for air, water, solid waste, mixed waste, and hazardous waste management. DOE and the State of Idaho have developed the Environmental Oversight and Monitoring Agreement to assure the citizens of Idaho that their health and safety and the environment are being protected. DOE is required to comply with all applicable environmental laws and regulations and provide technical and financial support for state activities to assess such compliance at INEL. The INEL air emissions inventory, completed in March 1991, catalogs and characterizes all vents, stacks, and potential sources of air pollutants at INEL. The air toxic compounds inventory for radioactive and other hazardous air pollutants is being compiled, and when added to the air emissions inventory, will serve as the basis for the operating permits required under Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA). All nine public water systems within INEL boundaries are currently in compliance with primary drinking water standards. Annual averages for all onsite and offsite drinking water samples were below EPA's maximum contaminant level for community drinking water systems. INEL holds two National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requests for discharges of noncontact cooling water and for discharges of wastewater to the Big Lost River from the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant. EPA placed INEL on the National Priorities List (NPL) on December 21, 1989. As a result, DOE entered into a Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order on December 9, 1991, with EPA and the State of Idaho to coordinate cleanup activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and RCRA. The agreement is implemented by an action plan which outlines the remedial action process which will encompass all investigations of hazardous substances and cleanup activities at INEL. On October 7, 1992, DOE signed another Consent Order with the State of Idaho to resolve the Hazardous Waste Notice of Violation issued by the State after a September 1990 inspection for 23alleged hazardous waste violations. This Consent Order provides the schedule for corrective actions which, when completed, will resolve this Notice of Violation. DOE has proposed to enter into a compliance agreement with the State of Idaho concerning the storage, treatment, and continued generation of land disposal restricted waste that would form the basis for the INEL site-specific mixed waste treatment plan required by the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. The proposed agreement would address INEL compliance with the Land Disposal Restrictions of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, allowing INEL to continue to operate and to generate, treat, and store mixed wastes. INEL is not in full compliance at present with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) due to the storage of radioactive polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated equipment and materials. DOE is negotiating a compliance agreement with the State of Idaho for the continued storage of radioactive PCB-contaminated wastes until a method for their treatment or disposal can be developed. DOE, the U.S. Navy, and the State of Idaho concurred on the Idaho Agreement on August 9, 1993. The Idaho Agreement encompasses the transportation, receipt, processing, and storage of spent nuclear fuel at INEL. This Agreement is a negotiated settlement among the parties to satisfy a June 28, 1993, order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho granting a motion for summary judgment, injunction, and administratively terminating action. The effect of this motion is to limit receipt of spent nuclear fuel pending completion of an EIS analyzing DOE's spent nuclear fuel activities and certain proposed INEL activities. 3.3.3 Nevada Test Site NTS occupies approximately 864,000 acres in the southeastern part of Nye County in southern Nevada. Located about 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, NTS is operated by several management and operating contractors under the direction of the Nevada Operations Office. It is a remote, secure facility that maintains the capability for conducting underground testing of nuclear weapons and evaluating the effects of nuclear weapons on military communications systems, electronics, satellites, sensors, and other materials. The first nuclear test at NTS was conducted in January 1951. Since the signing of the Threshold Test Ban Treaty in 1974, it has been the only U.S. site used for nuclear weapons testing. Approximately one-third of the land (located in the eastern and northwestern portions of the site) has been for nuclear weapons testing, one-third (located in the western portion of the site) has been reserved for future missions, and one-third is used for research and development and other facility requirements. Facilities include nuclear device assembly, diagnostic canister assembly, hazardous liquid spill, and the Radioactive Waste Management Site. In addition, Yucca Mountain, an area on the southwestern boundary of the site, is being evaluated by DOE for siting of a spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste repository. While the primary purpose of Yucca Mountain is for commercial HLW, it is also slated to receive some military HLW. Activities at NTS are concentrated in several general areas. Most of the onsite work is related to defense program activities, although there are environmental management, other DOE, and non-DOE activities as well. NTS is a unique facility because it is a large open area into which access is tightly controlled, it has a substantial infrastructure, and it has the capability to handle and run tests with hazardous or radioactive materials. Because of this, activities other than nuclear testing, such as mobile missile transporter tests and nuclear rocket tests, have been carried out for other Federal departments and agencies. The current missions and functions of NTS are shown in table3.3.3-1. Table 3.3.3-1.-Current Missions at Nevada Test Site Mission Description Sponsor Maintain Underground Nuclear Underground nuclear testing has been Assistant Secretary for Defense Testing Program Capabilities suspended; however, the capability to Programs resume testing will be maintained. Maintain Nuclear Emergency Tests and exercises are carried out to Assistant Secretary for Defense Search Team Program verify procedures and equipment of Programs Capabilities the Nuclear Emergency Search Team. Radioactive Waste Management Manage radioactive and mixed waste Assistant Secretary for facilities. Environmental Management Support the Yucca Mountain Waste Characterize environment of Yucca Office of Civilian Radioactive Storage Program Mountain and surrounding area, Waste Management especially geology, with respect to possible storage of high-level radioactive waste. Support Arms Control and Treaty Fulfill U.S. international obligations Office of Nonproliferation and Verification Activities concerning verification of underground National Security nuclear tests. Other DOE and non-DOE Various, as described in text. Various Missions Defense Program Activities. The defense program efforts and the Defense Nuclear Agency (non-DOE activity) activities are closely related, with both contributing to national security. Prior to the moratorium described below, nuclear testing was limited to those tests that supported the safety and reliability of the Nation's nuclear stockpile. The moratorium significantly restricted DOE experiments and virtually eliminated DOE support of Defense Nuclear Agency nuclear tests. In July 1993, the President extended the moratorium on nuclear tests indefinitely (both DOE and DOD). The moratorium started in October 1992, in accordance with the Hatfield Amendment. However, the President also required that NTS retain the capability to resume testing if authorized. The Nevada Operations Office, with DP oversight, has the lead Federal role in maintaining the capability to respond to certain kinds of national emergencies or situations. The Nuclear Emergency Search Team, a team of highly trained DOE and contractor radiological specialists, can be mobilized in case of accidents involving radioactive materials or a terrorist threat involving nuclear weapons. The only major new facility for defense program activities is the 100,000 square feet (ft2) Device Assembly Facility. It is located in Area 6, just south of the control point. Because of its multiple processing areas which include assembly cells, assembly bays, high bays, radiographic facilities, special nuclear materials laboratories, high explosive storage, special nuclear material storage, shipping and receiving areas, and associated administrative and support areas, all aspects of the operations will be handled in this one facility. In addition, the facility provides for increased overall security and permits easier entrance and exit accessibility for the workers during hazardous operations. There will be no manufacturing of special nuclear material at this facility. Environmental Management Activities. There are active radioactive and mixed waste disposal areas onsite in Areas 3 and 5. The only major environmental management facility anticipated for the NTS is a waste management facility to handle TRU wastes. A major program to characterize the groundwater at NTS is in progress to determine regional flow paths and rates, and to detect any migration of contamination from past nuclear testing. Other Department of Energy Activities. Although the principal activity at NTS has been the underground testing of nuclear devices, DOE is also involved in a number of other activities. These include the Yucca Mountain waste storage program, liquified gaseous fuel spill tests, and explosive pulsed power experiments. A high-level radioactive waste facility at nearby Yucca Mountain is under study. The Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive waste facility is handled by the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, which reports directly to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. However, because it is based at NTS, the Nevada Operations Office provides some administrative support services to the project. The Liquified Gaseous Fuel Test Facility in Area 5 was completed in 1986. It is operated on a fee basis for commercial users as a basic research tool for studying the dynamics of accidental releases of hazardous materials and to evaluate the effectiveness of various foams and fire retardants in accidents involving chemicals and hazardous materials. The manifestation of several other programs remain onsite. In Area 25 the Rover Program (nuclear rocket) facilities cover a large area. Area 26 held the Pluto Program (nuclear ram-jet) and three buildings remain there. NTS is the demonstration site for the development of a Solar Enterprise Zone in Nevada. A 100 MW solar facility is currently planned at the site, with potential for expansion to 500 MW in the future. Non-Department of Energy Activities. The main non-DOE activity at NTS was the Defense Nuclear Agency's use of the site as a nuclear weapons effects testing facility. Weapons effects tests were conducted to study a number of nuclear effects including x-rays, gamma rays, neutrons, electromagnetic pulse, air blast, ground and water shock, propagation, and temperature. These tests assessed military systems in a nuclear environment. Various other military exercises and training activities are also carried out at NTS. Environmental Regulatory Setting. The Department is working with Federal and state regulatory authorities to address compliance and cleanup obligations arising from its past operations at NTS. The Department is engaged in several activities to bring its operations into full regulatory compliance. Negotiated agreements will include financial penalties for nonachievement of agreed upon milestones. A brief description of the environmental regulatory setting at NTS follows. This is described in more detail in appendix section A.1.2. The State of Nevada has regulatory authority for air, water, solid waste, and hazardous waste. A Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and the State of Nevada covers radiological releases on NTS and required notifications. Releases to the NTS environment may originate from tunnels, underground test event sites, and facilities where materials are used, processed, stored, or discharged. DOE and the State of Nevada signed an Agreement in Principle in October 1990 to provide DOE funding to Nevada for oversight of environment, safety, and health (ES&H) activities, including environmental restoration activities at NTS. The Agreement in Principle provides the understanding between and commitment of the parties regarding DOE's provision to the State for technical and financial support in return for environmental oversight and monitoring. Liquid discharges at NTS are primarily the result of equipment cleaning and sanitary wastes. Discharges also result from groundwater seeping into the tunnels in Rainier Mesa, which have now been sealed. Periodic large discharges to lined sumps occur during characterization well drilling, development, and testing. These discharges are done in accordance with a draft fluid management plan being developed in consultation with the State of Nevada. Surface water monitoring at NTS is limited to sampling wastewater flowing into lagoons and ponds under a series of permits issued by the State of Nevada. In 1987, a DOE Headquarters task force determined that underground nuclear device testing areas are subject to the provisions of CERCLA. Under CERCLA, all releases of hazardous or extremely hazardous substances that exceed reportable quantities must be reported to the National Response Center. Soils contaminated by plutonium and other radioactive contaminants are the major concern for NTS. Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation reports required by CERCLA were prepared for NTS and provided to EPA in 1988. In 1992, a revised Hazard Ranking System package was provided to EPA. EPA will consider the results derived from the revised Hazard Ranking System to determine if any NTS sites are to be included on the NPL. The State of Nevada and DOE are in the process of negotiating a two-party agreement for environmental restoration pursuant to the State's corrective actions regulations. The Hazardous Waste Accumulation site on NTS is used to collect hazardous wastes prior to shipping offsite to a RCRA-permitted commercial hazardous waste disposal facility. In May 1990, mixed waste disposal operations were discontinued in compliance with the Land Disposal Restrictions of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendment of 1984. Mixed waste disposal operations of offsite generated waste at NTS will not resume until issuance of a State of Nevada RCRA Part B permit. 3.3.4 Oak Ridge Reservation ORR covers approximately 35,000 acres. It includes the following three major facilities: Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Y-12 Plant, ORR (Y-12); and Oak Ridge K-25 Site (K-25). Oak Ridge National Laboratory missions include basic and applied scientific research and technology development. Y-12 engages in national security activities and manufacturing outreach to U.S. industry. K-25, formerly known as the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, now serves as an operations center for environmental restoration and waste management programs. Y-12 was constructed as part of the World War II Manhattan Project. The first site mission was the separation of U-235 from natural uranium by electromagnetic separation. The magnetic separators were taken out of commission at the end of 1946, when gaseous diffusion became the accepted process for enriching uranium. Missions have evolved and changed with the easing of international tensions and resulting conclusion of Y-12's weapon component production mission. In the near-term, the operational space at Y-12 will be downsized in response to reduced workloads. Y-12 is designated as the single interim DOE repository for both unirradiated enriched uranium not required for program use and unirradiated depleted uranium. Present interim storage capability will be enhanced to accommodate additional enriched uranium returned from stockpiled weapons and other DOE sites. The current missions and functions are described in table 3.3.4-1. Defense Program Activities. The five Y-12 defense program assignments include maintaining the capability to fabricate components (primarily uranium and lithium) for nuclear weapons, storing uranium and lithium materials and parts, dismantling nuclear weapon components returned from the national stockpile, processing special nuclear materials,, and providing special production support to the DOE design agencies and other DOE programs. Table 3.3.4-1.-Current Missions at Oak Ridge Reservation Mission Description Sponsor Weapons Components Maintain capability to fabricate Assistant Secretary for Defense uranium and lithium components Programs and parts for nuclear weapons. Uranium and Lithium Store enriched uranium, depleted Assistant Secretary for Defense Storage uranium, and lithium materials Programs and parts. Dismantlement Activities Dismantle nuclear weapon components Assistant Secretary for Defense returned from the stockpile. Programs Special Nuclear Material Process uranium. Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs Support Services Provide support to design agencies as Assistant Secretary for Defense requested. Programs Environmental Restoration Waste Management and D&D activities Assistant Secretary for and Waste Management at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Management Y-12, and K-25. Research and Development Oak Ridge National Laboratory basic Office of Energy Research; research and development in energy, Assistant Secretary for health, and environment. Environment, Safety and Health; Office of Nuclear Energy Isotope Production Oak Ridge National Laboratory Office of Nuclear Energy produces radioactive and stable isotopes not available elsewhere. Educational and Research Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Office of Energy Research; Programs Education programs in the areas of Assistant Secretary for health, environment, and energy. Environment, Safety and Health; Office of Nuclear Energy Work for other Federal Projects to support other Federal Department of Energy Agencies programs. Technology Transfer Programs to transfer unique technologies Department of Energy developed at ORR to private industry. Meteorological Research Meteorological and atmospheric National Oceanic and Atmospheric diffusion research. Administration Historically, Y-12's primary mission has been to fabricate and assemble uranium (enriched and depleted) and lithium components and other specialty compounds in support of the nuclear weapons stockpile. While unprecedented changes in the world are resulting in nuclear disarmament and reduced nuclear weapons stockpiles, Y-12 continues to maintain the capability to fabricate nuclear weapon components as a major mission. Maintaining production capability involves the ability to fabricate materials into components, inspect and certify the components, and produce subassemblies from components. As nuclear weapons are removed from the stockpile, these returned weapons must be dismantled, and materials and parts appropriately dispositioned. These returned materials and components, as well as those currently located at Y-12, must be safely and securely placed in short-term or long-term storage. Prior to storage, some processing of special nuclear materials must be performed to recover materials from the returned weapons. Y-12 also provides fabrication support to DOE's weapon design laboratories at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico. Y-12 produces components for design evaluation for these customers. In addition, Y-12 performs some stockpile surveillance activities to ensure reliability of the nuclear stockpile. Environmental Management Activities. Environmental management activities are currently planned or in progress at each major functional area on ORR. These activities are summarized below. K-25. The site D&D program will continue to perform Phase I activities including the removal of hazardous materials, utilities, ventilation, lubrication, and cooling systems from the buildings until 1998. In addition, uranium deposits will be removed from process equipment; buildings will be characterized for radiological contamination; and pilot-scale projects will be implemented to test and evaluate technologies before full-scale decontamination, dismantlement, and demolition of the buildings take place. DOE's only TSCA mixed waste incinerator is located at K-25. Within the environmental restoration program, site assessments will continue to be the focus through 1998. Investigations will proceed according to priorities based on risks to human health and the environment. In addition, ongoing remediation work will continue and interim corrective actions will be initiated as needed. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The primary outlook for waste management activities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is to provide waste treatment, storage, and disposal support to DOE's research and development programs. Among areas of emphasis will be increased attention to waste reduction activities, full implementation of waste certification and characterization programs for all waste types, and continued improvement of facility operations through routine maintenance, operator training, and facility upgrades and involvement of private industry capabilities. Remedial action is proceeding in 12 of 20 regions known as waste area groupings. These 12 waste area groupings contain about 222 sites of contamination. Current activity is focused upon actions which address conditions with potential for affecting human health and the environment. Y-12. Waste management activities at Y-12 continue to treat, store, and dispose of waste generated by defense program activities and other resident programs. The decreasing amount of waste generated by defense production at Y-12 is expected to be offset by waste from weapon dismantlement activities, while the volume of waste from environmental restoration and D&D activities will significantly increase. Environmental management activities are discussed in detail in section 4.4.2.10 and in appendix H. Other Department of Energy Activities. Other DOE activities conducted at ORR include missions and programs of K-25, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Y-12, nondefense program missions, and the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. K-25 serves as the operations center for the management and operations contractor's programs. K-25 also houses DOE's Center for Environmental Technology and Center for Waste Management. Missions include activities in technology development; technology transfer; engineering technology; uranium enrichment support; and engineering, computing, and telecommunications. Oak Ridge National Laboratory supports DOE activities in energy production and conservation technologies, physical and life sciences, scientific and technological user facilities, environmental protection and waste management, science and technology transfer, and education. Oak Ridge National Laboratory also supplies radioactive and stable isotopes that are not available from the private sector. In addition to the defense program activities described previously, Y-12 provides support to Oak Ridge National Laboratory and other government agencies for processing source materials. The Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education's primary missions are to provide educational and research programs in the areas of health, environment, and energy for DOE, other Federal agencies, and privateindustry. Non-Department of Energy Activities. At present, the only non-DOE activity at ORR is the ongoing meteorological and atmospheric diffusion research work at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory. This facility also provides services to DOE contractors and operates the Weather Instrument Telemonitoring Monitoring System for DOE. The site also provides support for Department of Defense programs as needed. Environmental Regulatory Setting. The Department is working with Federal and state regulatory authorities to address compliance and cleanup obligations arising from its past operations at ORR. The Department is engaged in several activities to bring its operations into full regulatory compliance. These activities are set forth in negotiated agreements that contain schedules for achieving compliance with applicable requirements, and financial penalties for nonachievement of agreed upon milestones. A brief description of the environmental regulatory setting at ORR follows. More detail is available in appendix section A.1.3. The State of Tennessee has regulatory authority for air, water, solid waste, hazardous waste, and mixed waste (hazardous component only). DOE and the State of Tennessee have signed a Monitoring and Oversight Agreement intended to assure Tennessee citizens that their health, safety, and environment are being protected during ORR facility operations. Under this agreement, DOE will provide financial support to allow the State of Tennessee to carry out its commitment under the Monitoring and Oversight Agreement and the Federal Facility Agreement regarding cleanup activities. EPA placed ORR on the NPL on December 21, 1989. To satisfy the requirement for an interagency agreement, DOE, EPA Region IV, and the State of Tennessee completed a Federal Facility Agreement effective January 1, 1992. On March 26, 1993, EPA Region IV certified that DOE had completed all of the actions required by the ORR Radionuclide National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Federal Facility Compliance Agreement that they entered into on October 31, 1991. ORR is now considered to be in compliance with the National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than Radon From Department of Energy Facilities (40 CFR 61, Subpart H). Activities are underway to reduce discharges of priority pollutants, high temperature water, and toxic agents such as chlorine to the East Fork Poplar Creek. NPDES permits are required for each ORR facility. A renewed NPDES permit was issued to K-25 on October 1, 1992. The ORNL is operating under the provisions of its expired permit while the State of Tennessee acts on the remaining NPDES permit renewal. ORNL submitted a request for modification of its NPDES permit based on evidence that past exceedances of permit limits for total suspended solids, oil, and grease have not impacted watershed water quality. Y-12's NPDES permit was approved on July1, 1995. ORR facilities are being operated with a combination of RCRA Part B permits and interim status regulations. The RCRA Part B permit applications have been submitted for all of the active storage and treatment units listed on the Part A permit. The Federal Facility Compliance Agreement signed by EPA and DOE on June 12, 1992, addresses ORR compliance with the Land Disposal Restrictions of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, allowing ORR to continue to operate, and to generate and store mixed wastes. This agreement and subsequent plans would form the basis for the ORR site-specific treatment plan required by the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. TSCA requires that PCB wastes be disposed of within 1 year of initial storage. However, some PCB wastes are not acceptable to the TSCA incinerator at K-25 and therefore have been stored in excess of 1 year. On June 11, 1992, DOE formally requested negotiation of a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement with EPA to allow development of a treatment and disposal schedule for ORR's radioactive PCB-contaminated waste and storage or disposal per the Agreement. 3.3.5 Pantex Plant Pantex is located about 17 miles northeast of Amarillo, TX, on approximately 10,000 acres. Pantex was originally constructed by the U.S. Army as a conventional bomb plant early during World War II and was deactivated and vacated after the war. In 1949, Texas Technological College (Texas Tech) purchased the entire site for a token fee of $1 for use in experimental agriculture. However, in 1951, the Atomic Energy Commission asked the Army to "recapture" the main plant and 10,000 surrounding acres for use as a nuclear weapons production facility, at which time the plant was refurbished and expanded. Pantex absorbed the weapons modification functions of the Clarksville, TN, and Medina, TX, plants in 1965 and 1966, respectively. In 1975, Pantex absorbed the functions of the decommissioned Burlington Plant in Iowa. In 1984, an additional 5,800 acres of the original site were leased back from Texas Tech to serve as a security buffer zone between the main plant area and U.S. Highway60. Pantex functions include the fabrication of chemical explosives; nuclear weapons assembly, disassembly, testing, quality assurance, repair, and nonnuclear component disposal; and development work in support of the design laboratories. Pantex is the only DOE facility that can execute the final assembly of a nuclear weapon for the DOD stockpile, including the joining of plutonium pits to the chemical explosive main charges to form primary assemblies. In the near term, weapons disassembly and component storage activities will dominate activities at Pantex. Facilities at Pantex will not be downsized or consolidated to a significant degree. Due to ongoing activities to reduce the weapons stockpile, Pantex has developed a capability for sealed pit storage. The present storage capacity is 20,000 units although DOE has agreed to store no more than 12,000 units at Pantex until it completes a site-wide EIS. The current missions and functions are listed in table3.3.5-1. Defense Program Activities. Almost all activities at Pantex are related to the defense program. Brief descriptions for operations falling under plant missions and functions are provided in the followingparagraphs. Table 3.3.5-1.-Current Missions at Pantex Plant Mission Description Sponsor Plutonium Storage Provide required plant facility. Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs High Explosive(s) Components Manufacture for use in nuclear weapons. Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs Weapon Assembly Assemble nuclear weapons for the Assistant Secretary for Defense stockpile. Programs Weapon Maintenance Retrofit, maintain, and repair stockpile Assistant Secretary for Defense weapons. Programs Quality Assurance Stockpile quality assurance testing and Assistant Secretary for Defense evaluation. Programs Weapon Disassembly Disassemble stockpile weapons Assistant Secretary for Defense as required. Programs Test/Training Programs Assemble nuclear weapon-like devices Assistant Secretary for Defense for training. Programs Weapons Dismantlement Dismantle nuclear weapons no longer Assistant Secretary for Defense required. Programs Development Support Provide support to design agencies as Assistant Secretary for Defense requested. Programs Support Services Provide required plant support services. Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs Waste Management Provide waste management and D&D Assistant Secretary for activities. Environmental Management High explosive(s) (HE) components production includes: manufacturing main charge subassemblies and mock components for use in weapon test assemblies; manufacturing small HE components; producing a variety of explosive materials from chemical reactants and commercially produced explosives; and evaluating explosive materials and components through a variety of analytical, mechanical, and explosive tests. New production in the context of the Pantex mission is defined as the final assembly of a new nuclear weapon. Pantex receives weapons components and other materials from throughout the DOE Complex and from the U.S. military. Historically, the DOE facilities at SRS, Y-12, the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (formerly known as the Rocky Flats Plant), and the Kansas City Plant, located in Kansas City, MO, have contributed components and subassemblies for use in the final assembly of nuclear weapons. After final assembly, the items produced at Pantex are shipped either to other facilities within the DOE Complex or to military facilities by safe secure trailers. Modification, maintenance, and repair involves the disassembly of a stockpiled nuclear weapon so that one or more of the components can be repaired, replaced, or modified. After replacing the components, the weapon is reassembled and returned to the stockpile. Pantex also performs many quality assurance evaluation activities on both new and stockpiled nuclear weapons. These tests involve the disassembly of a weapon, the laboratory testing of various components, and the rebuilding of the weapon for shipment back to the stockpile. The plant also disassembles nuclear weapons no longer needed in the stockpile. In addition to the primary efforts associated with weapons assembly and disassembly, Pantex provides development support and services to the nuclear weapon design agencies and to other government entities as requested. Pantex contains a number of facilities that stage weapon components destined either for the assembly cells or for shipment back to other DOE facilities. Staging procedures may involve the leak testing of staging containers, inventory procedures to verify the number and contents of containers, and unpacking and repacking to physically verify and test contents. Environmental Management Activities. Waste management operations at Pantex in the near term (1996 to 1997) would add facilities to enhance capabilities to adequately handle existing waste streams. New facilities for HE incineration and hazardous waste staging, treatment, and storage would be coupled with increased use of commercial offsite facilities to treat mixed waste streams. The long-range outlook (5 to 30 years) indicates increased waste generation as a result of accelerated retirement of the weapons inventory. New waste-handling capacities may be required to meet this need, such as new recycling markets. However, upon completion of the current backlog of dismantlements due to the recent stockpile reductions, this waste generation will decrease. Environmental management activities are discussed in detail in section 4.5.2.10 and in appendixH. Environmental Regulatory Setting. The Department is working with Federal and state regulatory authorities to address compliance and cleanup obligations arising from its past operations at Pantex. The Department is engaged in several activities to bring its operations into full regulatory compliance. These activities are set forth in negotiated agreements that contain schedules for achieving compliance with applicable requirements, and financial penalties for nonachievement of agreed upon milestones. A brief description of the environmental regulatory setting at Pantex follows. More detail is available in appendix section A.1.4. DOE entered into an Agreement in Principle, effective July 31, 1990, with the State of Texas to independently determine and verify any plant operational impacts to the environment. Pursuant to the terms of this agreement, DOE agrees to provide technical and financial support to the state agencies responsible for waste management, environmental monitoring, and emergency response planning at Pantex. DOE will provide the State with a chemical and radiological contaminant inventory and assessment of the plant. The Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission implemented an environmental monitoring program at Pantex and is providing an independent evaluation of environmental monitoring data. EPA placed Pantex on the NPL on May 31, 1994. The city of Amarillo operates a major water supply well field immediately north and down gradient of Pantex. Pantex receives its drinking water via five groundwater wells located on the northeast corner of the plant. The water is treated onsite and tested in accordance with requirements for public drinking water systems. The domestic water supply at Pantex meets all of the national primary and secondary drinking water standards for noncommunity, nontransient public water supply systems. The system is being operated and maintained in compliance with the State of Texas statutes and regulations. On April 25, 1991, the EPA and the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission issued a hazardous waste permit to Pantex to manage hazardous and industrial solid wastes and operate a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility. Pantex thermally treats explosive waste and explosive-contaminated waste at the Burning Ground. The hazardous waste permit specifically excluded the 17 RCRA units at the Burning Ground, but continued the interim status of the units which can operate under their "Written Grant of Authority" from the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission. In November 1991, DOE formally submitted to the State of Texas a request for a modification to add the units at the Burning Ground to its hazardous waste permit. The State of Texas, DOE, and parties to the hearing process are continuing discussions on terms of the proposed permit modification. 3.3.6 Savannah River Site SRS, located on approximately 198,000 acres near Aiken, SC, became operational in 1953. The major nuclear facilities at SRS have included fuel and target fabrication facilities; nuclear material production reactors; chemical separation plants used for recovery of plutonium and uranium isotopes; a uranium fuel processing area; and the Savannah River Technology Center that provides process support. Tritium recycling facilities empty tritium from expired reservoirs, purify it to eliminate the helium decay product, and fill replacement reservoirs with specification tritium for nuclear stockpile weapons. Filled reservoirs are delivered to Pantex for weapons assembly and directly to DOD as replacements for expired reservoirs. Historically, DOE has produced tritium at SRS. However, DOE has not produced new tritium since 1988. Until a new supply facility is online, DOE will not have an assured long-term tritium production capability. Plutonium and spent nuclear fuel processing at SRS have been terminated. DOE is currently preparing a separate EIS to explore the use of these facilities to stabilize existing quantities of plutonium residues. Tritium recycling operations will continue with the Replacement Tritium Facility conducting the majority of these operations. As part of the nonnuclear consolidation, SRS is also in the process of receiving some of the tritium processing functions performed at the Mound Plant in Miamisburg, OH. The current missions at SRS are shown in table 3.3.6-1. These activities can be categorized as defense program, environmental management, nuclear energy, and other activities. Defense Program Activities. In the past, the SRS complex for the production of nuclear materials consisted of five reactors (the C-, K-, L-, P-, and R-Reactors) in addition to a fuel and target fabrication plant, two target and spent nuclear fuel chemical sep- aration plants, a tritium-target processing facility, a heavy water rework facility, and waste management facilities. Recently, the K-Reactor, the last operational reactor, was put into cold standby status with no planned provision for restart, thus ending all tritium and special isotope production capability. SRS is conducting tritium-recycling operations in support of stockpile requirements using retired weapons as the tritium supply source. Environmental Activities. Environmental management is pursuing a 30-year plan to achieve full compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and agreements; treat, store, and dispose of existing waste; reduce generation of new wastes; clean up inactive waste sites; remediate contaminated groundwater; and dispose of surplus facilities. Environmental management activities are discussed in detail in section 4.6.2.10 and appendix H. Other Department of Energy Activities. The Savannah River Technology Center provides technical support to all DOE operations at SRS. In this role, it provides process engineering development to reduce costs, waste generation, and radiation exposure. SRS continues to provide Pu-238 required to support space programs and has an expanding mission to transfer unique technologies developed at the site to industry. SRS is also an active participant in the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program formulated to develop technologies to mitigate environmental hazards at DOD and DOE sites. Table 3.3.6-1.-Current Missions at Savannah River Site Mission Description Sponsor Tritium Recycling Operate H-Area tritium facilities. Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs Space Program Support Provide Pu-238 for space program Office of Nuclear Energy missions. Interim Plutonium Storage Operate Plutonium Storage Facility Assistant Secretary for Defense Vault. Programs Waste Management Operate waste processing facilities. Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management Environmental Monitoring and Operate remediation facilities. Assistant Secretary for Restoration Environmental Management Process Backlog Targets and Operate F- and H-Canyons. Assistant Secretary for Defense Spent Nuclear Fuel Programs Research and Development Savannah River Technology Center Assistant Secretary for Defense Technical support of DP, EM, and Programs; Assistant Secretary Nuclear Energy programs. for Environmental Management; Office of Nuclear Energy Other DOE and non-DOE Various, as described in text. Various Missions Non-Department of Energy Activities. There are several facilities and operations at SRS such as the Savannah River Forest Station, the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, and the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology. The Savannah River Forest Station is an administrative unit of the U.S. Forest Service that provides timber management, research support, soil and water protection, wildlife management, secondary roads management, and fire management to DOE. The Savannah River Forest Station manages 154,000 acres (approximately 80 percent of the site area). It has been responsible for reforestation and manages an active timber business. The Savannah River Forest Station assists with the development and updating of site-wide land use and provides continual support with site layout and vegetative management. It also assists in long-term wildlife management and soil rehabilitation projects. The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory is operated for DOE by the Institute of Ecology of the University of Georgia. It has established a center of ecological field research where faculty, staff, and students perform interdisciplinary field research and provide an understanding of the impact of energy technologies on the ecosystems of the southeastern United States. This information is communicated to the scientific community, government agencies, and the general public. In addition to Savannah River Ecology Laboratory studies, the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology is operated by the University of South Carolina to survey the archaeological resources of SRS. This survey is used by DOE when planning new facility additions or modifications, and is referred to in the operations management of the site. Environmental Regulatory Setting. The Department is working with Federal and state regulatory authorities to address compliance and cleanup obligations arising from its past operations at SRS. The Department is engaged in several activities to bring its operations into full regulatory compliance. These activities are set forth in negotiated agreements that contain schedules for achieving compliance with applicable requirements, and financial penalties for nonachievement of agreed upon milestones. A brief description of the environmental regulatory setting at SRS follows. More detail is available in appendix section A.1.5. The State of South Carolina has regulatory authority for air, water, solid waste, hazardous waste, and mixed waste. DOE and the State of South Carolina have signed a Memorandum of Agreement whereby SRS agrees to abide by South Carolina environmental laws as any other industry in the state, and will also implement an environmental management plan and report regularly on the progress of that plan. EPA placed SRS on the NPL effective December 21, 1989. DOE entered into a Federal Facility Agreement effective August 16, 1993, with the EPA and the State of South Carolina to coordinate CERCLA and RCRA cleanups under one comprehensive strategy, that expands the ongoing RCRA Facility Investigation Program. This strategy governs the corrective/reme- dial action process from site investigation through site remediation, including schedules for producing work plans and facilitating public involvement in decision-making processes. DOE and EPA entered into the Federal Facility Compliance Agreement for NESHAP on October 31, 1991, allowing SRS to continue operations while installing and certifying additional monitoring and sampling equipment. DOE issued a Letter of Commitment on October 21, 1991, agreeing to redress drinking water system deficiencies. In addition, DOE entered into a Settlement Agreement on February 27, 1990, to satisfy violations of discharging wastewater without a permit. The Federal Facility Compliance Agreement signed by EPA and DOE on March 13, 1991, addresses SRS compliance with the Land Disposal Restrictions of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, allowing SRS to continue to operate, generate, and store mixed wastes. This agreement was amended on April 24, 1992, to include mixed wastes whose treatment standards are outlined in the Land Disposal Restrictions Third Thirds Rule (40 CFR 268.35) and an alternative treatment strategy for M-Area waste. This amended agreement would form the basis for the SRS mixed waste site-specific treatment plan required by the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. TSCA requires PCB wastes to be disposed of within one year of its initial storage. SRS is currently storing radioactive PCB-contaminated equipment and materials past the allowable storage cutoff date. Due to the radioactive nature of these wastes, treatment capability for these wastes is not currently available. DOE is developing this treatment capability and working with South Carolina to approve a treatability study to remove the PCB contamination and return the radioactive materials to SRS as LLW. 3.3.7 Commercial Light Water Reactor Site The commercial light water reactor alternative does not include a specific site for analysis in the PEIS. Any one of the existing operating commercial nuclear reactors or partially completed reactors is a potential candidate site for the tritium supply mission. Currently, 109 commercial nuclear power plants are located at 71 sites in 32 of the contiguous states. Of these, 53 sites are located east of the Mississippi River. No commercial nuclear power plants are located in Alaska or Hawaii. Approximately one-half of these 71 sites contain two or three nuclear units per site. Typically, commercial nuclear power plant sites and the surrounding area are flat-to-rolling countryside in wooded or agricultural areas. More than 50 percent of the sites have 50-mile population densities of less than 200 persons per square mile and over 80 percent have 50-mile densities of less than 500 persons per square mile. Site areas range from 84 acres to 30,000 acres. Twenty-eight site areas range from 500 to 1,000 acres and an additional 12 sites are in the 1,000 to 2,000acre range. Thus, almost 60 percent of the plant sites encompass 500 to 2,000 acres. The larger land-use areas are associated with plant cooling systems that include reservoirs, artificial lakes, and buffer areas. 3.4 Tritium Supply Technologies and Recycling Four new tritium supply technologies are being considered in this PEIS: HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and APT. Each of these would be either collocated with a new tritium recycling facility or use upgraded recycling facilities at SRS. The PEIS also considers purchase of a commercial reactor and conversion to defense purposes or use of a commercial reactor for irradiation services. These commercial reactor alternatives would use upgraded recycling facilities and new extraction and target fabrication facilities at SRS. These tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities and their construction, operation, and waste generation data are discussed in the following sections. 3.4.1 Background Tritium, primarily a man-made radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is an essential component of all United States nuclear weapons. Tritium is needed by warheads to ensure that they perform as designed. Because of its radioactive decay, the tritium in the warheads must be periodically replenished. Because it is so rare in nature, all tritium used for weapons and other applications is man-made. However, no new tritium has been produced in the United States since 1988, when all of the tritium-producing reactors at SRS were shut down. Had the Cold War continued, the nuclear weapons stockpile would have quickly run out of tritium if no new tritium were produced. However, because of agreements between the United States and Russia, many nuclear weapons are being removed from the stockpile for dismantlement. This has reduced overall demand for tritium and made more tritium available to support the remaining stockpile. Eventually, however, even this tritium will decay to the point that there will not be enough to meet all nuclear weapons stockpile requirements. A new facility for producing new tritium will be needed early in the next century. The overall tritium supply and recycling complex is depicted in figure 3.4.1-1. 3.4.1.1 Production of Tritium The production of tritium occurs when target materials containing lithium-6 or the gas helium-3 are exposed to neutrons. The subsequent absorption of neutrons by the target atoms causes the target atom to become highly unstable, breaking apart almost instantaneously, leaving tritium as one of the decay products. After neutron bombardment, the target material is removed and the tritium extracted. In the case of the three nuclear reactor technologies analyzed in this PEIS (HWR, MHTGR, and ALWR), neutrons are produced by fission of uranium which has been enriched with U-235. In the case of the proton accelerator, neutrons are produced by the impact of high energy protons in a heavy metal target, such as lead or tungsten. Such a process is called nuclear spallation. 3.4.1.2 Construction Construction of each tritium supply technology would involve heavy construction equipment, such as bulldozers, dump trucks, cranes, concrete trucks, and paving equipment. Construction time would vary from 5 to 9 years, depending upon the tritium supply technology. Heavy duty construction activity would fluctuate during the course of construction. At various times there would be increases in the number of workers, vehicular traffic, and noise. Construction activity for each of the tritium supply technologies would require a certain amount of onsite clearing and excavation activity for the laying of foundations, the laying of utility cables for electrical systems, and the installation of underground water and sewage systems. Substantial below ground construction would be required for the MHTGR reactor modules and the APT accelerator tunnel. A construction laydown area would be required for each technology for the purpose of storing raw materials, building supplies, and construction equipment. The size of each laydown area would vary (173 acres to 360 acres), depending on the tritium supply technology, and generally would not exceed the eventual operation area. 3.4.1.3 Operation Although not all of the four technologies use the same methods to produce tritium, they all share common operations facilities. In addition to security, general services, and administrative activities, each technology would require an extraction facility to separate the newly produced tritium from target rods or blankets, a waste treatment facility to process generated waste and a spent nuclear fuel storage area to store used fuel assemblies. A spent fuel storage facility would not be required for the APT because fuel rods are not used in this technology. Additionally, all of the tritium technologies would require a cooling system, an adequate source of water, and in some cases, a cooling basin. Figure (Page 3-28) Figure 3.4.1-1.-Tritium Supply and Recycling Complex. Each of the reactor technologies would require a periodic changing of the fuel and target rods. Target rods or assemblies would be placed in cooling pools for a short period of time to allow decay of short-lived activation products prior to tritium extraction. The targets would then be sent to the tritium extraction facility where the tritium would be extracted from the irradiated target rods or blankets, purified, and sent to the recycling facility where it would be used to fill tritium reservoirs for weapons. The accelerator would require removal or replacement of the target material depending on the target system chosen. The recycling facility would also take reservoirs returned from the stockpile, empty them, and purify the tritium for reuse in new reservoirs. Operation for all technologies would require routine maintenance activities such as preventative maintenance and equipment repair, which are found in any industrial activity. Each of the technologies would generate LLW such as glove box tools, protective clothing, and high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters; mixed LLW such as rags contaminated with solvents and oils; hazardous wastes, including cleaning solvents and vacuum pump oils; and normal nonhazardous wastes such as sewage and trash. Additionally, the reactor technologies would generate spent nuclear fuel. 3.4.1.4 Cooling Systems Because of the heat generated by nuclear reactors and accelerators, an extensive cooling system would be required to keep them within specified temperature ranges. The heat dissipation system would be dependent on site characteristics. Both wet and dry cooling systems would use water as the heat exchange medium. Wet or dry cooling systems can be used for the reactor technologies considered in this PEIS. As previously described in section 3.1, dry cooling is not presently a feasible option for the APT technology and wet cooling would be used for it even at dry sites. In a wet or once-through cooling system, water is drawn continuously at a high rate from an adjacent body of water and circulated through a condenser. This condensor transfers waste heat from the reactor or accelerator to the cooling water, and discharges it back into the body of water. Hence, plants with once-through cooling systems are located only near major rivers, large lakes, or an ocean, where the water supply is adequate. Wet systems would typically use natural draft cooling towers (figure 3.4.2.3-1) and the evaporation process to carry off heat. Dry systems would typically use water in closed nonevaporative mechanical draft cooling towers (figure 3.4.2.1-1) to carry off heat to the atmosphere by conduction through radiator like vanes with fans to move air over the vanes. There would be some water loss through evaporation in a dry system, but significantly less than with a wet tower. Dry cooling towers would be used for the reactors at all dry sites (e.g., sites with limited or no surface water). In this PEIS the dry sites are considered to be INEL, NTS and Pantex. Depending on the type of cooling system selected and various other factors such as the climatic conditions at the site, these cooling towers could range from 7 stories for mechanical draft dry cooling towers to 20 to 50 stories for natural draft wet cooling towers. Typically, each unit is made of concrete and circular in shape. Natural draft wet cooling towers must be very tall structures in order to produce sufficient draft to work properly. As a result, natural draft wet cooling towers are more expensive to build than mechanical draft dry cooling towers; however their operating costs are significantly less and the units are much quieter in operation. Mechanical draft dry cooling towers usually consist of a number of individual units. As previously stated, they are less expensive to build than natural towers but more costly to operate. This is reflected in higher utility costs, especially for electricity. 3.4.1.5 Decontamination and Decommissioning D&D activities would be carried out at the end of the facility's life to permit the facility to be removed safely from service and to enable the property to be used for other purposes. The scope of work required for D&D activities can range from performing a simple radiological survey to completely dismantling and removing a radioactively-contaminated facility. Although D&D activities do not begin until the end of a facility's life, planning for D&D begins in the design phase. All proposed tritium supply technologies and recycling facilities would be designed to minimize facility equipment contamination and thereby make future D&D of such facilities as simple and inexpensive as feasible, and to minimize the impacts of future D&D, as required by DOE Orders 5820.2A, Radioactive Waste Management and 6430.1A, General Design Criteria. Further discussion of future D&D requirements is presented in section 4.14. Examples of design features that may be incorporated into tritium supply and recycling facilities to facilitate future D&D are: Modular, separable confinements for radioactive and other hazardous materials that preclude contamination of fixed portions of the structure. Localized liquid transfer systems that avoid long runs of buried contaminated piping, including special provisions that ensure the integrity of joints in buried pipelines. Exhaust filtration components of the ventilation systems at or near individual enclosures to minimize long runs of internally contaminated ductwork. Equipment, including effluent decontamination equipment, that precludes the accumulation of radioactive or other hazardous materials in relatively inaccessible areas, including curves and turns in piping and ductwork. Easily decontaminated materials that reduce the amount of radioactive and other hazardous materials requiring disposal. Designs that ease cutup, dismantlement, removal, and packaging of contaminated equipment from the facility. Modular radiation shielding in lieu of or in addition to monolithic shielding walls. Lifting lugs on large tanks and equipment. Fully drainable piping systems that carry contaminated or potentially contaminated liquids. 3.4.2 Tritium Supply Technologies Of the tritium supply technologies considered by DOE for the production of tritium in this PEIS, only the HWR has tritium production operating experience. The light water reactor (upon which the ALWR and commercial reactor alternative are based) and gas reactor technologies have been used in electrical power production but lack tritium production experience and development of tritium target technology. The APT technology, which has an operating history in research and development programs, also has no tritium production experience and only recent development of tritium targets. Since the MHTGR, ALWR, and the commercial reactor were developed originally to produce electricity and as such have steam turbines as an integral part of their designs, this PEIS evaluates the environmental effects of both of these technologies with turbines included. The actual sale of steam or generation of electricity by DOE would be covered in the site-specific tiered NEPA documents if either of these technologies were chosen and DOE developed a proposal to sell steam or generate electricity. The general impacts of the transmission lines necessary to carry this generated electricity are discussed in section 4.8.1. In addition, the general impacts of constructing and operating a power plant (either coal or natural gas burning) to provide the required power for the APT are also presented in section 4.8.2. As both the MHTGR and the ALWR technologies could also be used for the ultimate disposition of plutonium by burning mixed-oxide fuel, the general impacts of operating these two technologies with mixed-oxide fuel is presented in section 4.8.3. The site-specific impacts of a gas-fired power plant and a multipurpose reactor are described for affected resources in sections 4.2 through 4.6. 3.4.2.1 Heavy Water Reactor The HWR would be a low pressure, low temperature reactor whose sole purpose would be to produce tritium. A detailed description of the HWR technology and its operation is provided in appendix A. The HWR would use heavy water as the reactor coolant and moderator. Because of the low temperature of the exit coolant, a power conversion system designed to produce electrical power as an option would not be feasible. In addition to the reactor, the HWR complex would consist of several support buildings and other facilities required for the supply and extraction of tritium. The HWR complex would cover approximately 260acres and would be surrounded entirely by a security fence. The main reactor would be about 10 stories high and other associated buildings would range from one story to three stories in height. The cooling towers would vary in height, depending on the type of cooling towers utilized. The cooling tower basin, which serves as a holding pond for the cooling towers, would cover approximately 2 acres. In this PEIS dry sites (INEL, NTS, and Pantex) would use mechanical draft dry cooling towers while wet sites (ORR and SRS) would use natural draft wet cooling towers. The conceptual design of the HWR complex includes a fuel and target fabrication facility to assemble fuel and target rods that are used in the reactor core; a tritium target processing facility to extract and collect tritium from irradiated targets; an interim spent fuel storage building to store used target and fuel rods; a general services building for administrative purposes; and security infrastructure to control access to the complex. Figure 3.4.2.1-1 shows a representative drawing of an HWR complex with mechanical draft cooling towers for illustrative purposes only. The number and arrangement of buildings and support areas are descriptive only and can change significantly as design progresses. The fuel and target fabrication facility would be a steel or concrete structure designed to control the spread of contamination within the building and prevent the uncontrolled release of radioactive material. The target processing facility would consist of two attached structures; a process building and a support building. The process building would include the laboratory, and other activities associated with handling tritium. The support building contains offices, maintenance areas, and nonradioactive ventilation systems. The design of the HWR would incorporate numerous safety features including: an emergency power facility to house diesel generators or gas turbines for short-term emergency power to support safety related loads in the event of temporary failure of the offsite power supply; a reactor containment building to limit any operational or accidental release of radioactivity, an emergency core cooling system to makeup coolant for heat removal in the event of a loss of coolant or a loss of pumping; an emergency shutdown system with safety rods independent of the reactor control rods; a neutron poison system to inject neutron absorbing material into the moderator tank; and a backup system to remove heat from the reactor if the primary coolant fails to circulate. Construction of the HWR would take somewhat less than 8 years and require approximately 2,320workers during the peak construction period. The construction area would be approximately 260acres. Once constructed, approximately 1 to 2years would be needed for systems checkout of the reactor prior to actual tritium production. Construction and operation requirements for the HWR are given in tables 3.4.2.1-1 and 3.4.2.1-2. Estimated waste generation data for the HWR facility are given in table 3.4.2.1-3. Figure (Page 3-32) Figure 3.4.2.1-1.-Heavy Water Reactor Facility (Typical). Table 3.4.2.1-1.-Heavy Water Reactor Construction Requirements Requirement Consumption Material/Resources - Electrical energy (MWh) 87,000 Concrete (yd3) 220,000 Steel (tons) 45,000 Gasoline, diesel fuel, and 2,400,000 lube oil (gal) Water (gal) 170,000,000 Land disturbance (acres) 260 Employment - Total employment (worker years) 9,760 Peak employment (workers) 2,320 Construction period (years) 8 Source: DOE 1995d. Table 3.4.2.1-2.-Heavy Water Reactor Operation Requirements Requirement Consumption Electrical Energy (MWh/yr) - Wet site 370,000 Dry site 540,000 Electrical Load (MWe) - Wet site 51 Dry site 69 Fuel - Gas (ft3/yr) 240,000,000 Liquid (GPY) 82,000 Water (MGY) - Wet site 5,900 Dry site 48 Plant Footprint - Plant (acres) 260 Employment - Total workers 930 Badged workers 230 Source: DOE 1995d. Table 3.4.2.1-3.-Heavy Water Reactor Estimated Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Volumes - Annual Average Volume Annual Volume Generated Annual Volume Effluent Generated From Construction From Operations From Operations Category (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) Spent Nuclear Fuel None 7 7a Low-Level - - - Liquid None 10,400 None (2,100,000 gal) Solid None 5,200 1,870 Mixed Low-Level - - - Liquid None None None Solid None 120 120 Hazardous - - - Liquid Included in solid Included in solid Included in solid Solid 20 40 40 Nonhazardous (Sanitary) - - - Liquid 79,220 238,000 238,000d (16,000,000 gal) (48,000,000 gal) (48,000,000 gal) Solid 7,800 7,600 2,530 Nonhazardous (Other) - - - Liquid 2,570 Included in Included in (520,000 gal) sanitary sanitary Solid Included in 6,500 None sanitary 3.4.2.2 Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor The MHTGR would be a high temperature, moderate pressure reactor whose primary purpose would be to produce tritium. A detailed description of the MHTGR technology and its operation is provided in appendix A. The MHTGR would use helium gas as a core coolant and graphite as a moderator. Because of the high temperature of the exit coolant, a power conversion facility designed to produce electricity is an integral part of the design and will be included in this analysis. In addition to the reactor building and the power conversion building, the MHTGR complex would consist of several buildings and other facilities required for the supply and extraction of tritium. The MHTGR complex would cover approximately 360 acres and would be surrounded entirely by a security fence. The MHTGR would consist of three 350 MWt reactor vessels housed in adjacent, below-grade, reinforced-concrete silos. The silos would extend approximately 160 feet below-grade and each reactor vessel would be about 22 feet in diameter and 75 feet high. Each reactor vessel would contain a reactor core, reflectors, and associated supports. A shutdown cooling heat exchanger and a shutdown cooling circulator would be located at the bottom of the vessels. Support buildings and other associated facilities within the MHTGR complex would range in height from one to three stories. Two cooling towers would be needed and their height would vary, depending on the type of cooling towers that are utilized. In this PEIS dry sites (INEL, NTS, and Pantex) would use mechanical draft dry cooling towers and wet sites (ORR and SRS) would use natural draft wet cooling towers. The design of the MHTGR complex would include a fuel and target fabrication facility, a tritium target processing building, helium storage buildings, waste treatment facilities, spent fuel storage facility, a general services building, a security infrastructure, and a power conversion facility consisting of three turbine-generators and associated electrical control equipment. Figure 3.4.2.2-1 shows a representative drawing of a MHTGR complex with mechanical draft cooling towers shown for illustrative purposes only. The number and arrangement of buildings and support areas are descriptive only and can change sig- nificantly as design progresses. The design of the MHTGR would incorporate numerous safety features that include: an emergency power facility to house diesel generators or gas turbines for short-term emergency power to support safety related loads in the event of temporary failure of the offsite power supply; a below-grade design, which serves as a barrier to external hazards (aircraft, turbine blades, and tornado-generated debris), reduces seismic-induced stress on the reactors, and provides radiological shielding; a below-grade containment structure made of reinforced concrete; an emergency core cooling system; and an emergency shutdown system with safety rods independent of the reactor control rods. Construction of the MHTGR would take about 9 years and require approximately 2,210 workers during the peak construction period. The construction area would be approximately 360 acres. One to two years would be needed after construction for system check-out of the reactor prior to actual tritium production. Construction and operation requirements for the MHTGR are given in tables 3.4.2.2-1 and 3.4.2.2-2. Estimated waste generation data for the MHTGR complex are given in table 3.4.2.2-3 Figure (Page 3-35) Figure 3.4.2.2-1.-Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Facility (Typical). Table 3.4.2.2-1.-Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Construction Requirements Requirement Consumption Material/Resources - Electrical energy (MWh) 73,000 Concrete (yd3) 220,000 Steel (tons) 60,000 Gasoline, diesel fuel, and 3,200,000 lube oil (gal) Water (gal) 160,000,000 Land Disturbance (acres) 360 Employment - Total employment (worker years) 8,810 Peak employment (workers) 2,210 Construction period (years) 9 Source: DOE 1995e. Table 3.4.2.2-2.-Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Operation Requirements Requirement Consumption Electrical Energy (MWh/yr) - Wet site 260,000 Dry site 360,000 Electrical Load (MWe) - Wet site 36 Dry site 46 Fuel - Gas (ft3/yr) 6,000,000 Liquid (GPY) 81,000 Water (MGY) - Wet site 4,000 Dry site 30 Plant Footprint - Plant (acres) 360 Employment - Total workers 910 Badged workers 180 Source: DOE 1995e. Table 3.4.2.2-3.-Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Estimated Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Volumes - Annual Average Volume Annual Volume Generated From Annual Volume Generated From Construction Operations Effluent From Operations Category (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) Spent Nuclear Fuel None 80 80a Low-Level - - - Liquid None 2,600 None (525,000 gal) Solid None 1,300 468 Mixed Low-Level - - - Liquid None None None Solid None <1 <1 Hazardous - - - Liquid Included in solid Included in solid Included in solid Solid 20 100 100 Nonhazardous (Sanitary) - - - Liquid 64,400 149,000 149,000d (13,000,000 gal) (30,000,000 gal) (30,000,000 gal) Solid 7,100 7,400 2,470 Nonhazardous (Other) - - - Liquid 3,020 Included in sanitary Included in sanitary (610,000 gal) Solid Included in sanitary 6,400 None 3.4.2.3 Advanced Light Water Reactor The ALWR would be a high temperature, high pressure reactor whose primary purpose would be to produce tritium. There are two options for the proposed ALWR technology: a Large ALWR (1,300MWe) and a Small ALWR (600 MWe). The large and small options would be chosen from the following four candidates: a large or small pressurized water reactor or a large or small boiling water reactor. A detailed description of the ALWR technology options and their operations is provided in appendix A. All ALWR options would use light (regular) water as the reactor coolant and moderator. Like the MHTGR, a power conversion facility (steam turbine) is an integral part of the design for the ALWR because of the high temperature of the exit coolant and will be included in this analysis. In addition to the reactor building, the ALWR complex would consist of several support buildings and other facilities for the supply and extraction of tritium. The ALWR would cover approximately 350 acres and the whole complex would be surrounded by a security fence. The main reactor building would be approximately 10 stories high. The other associated buildings would range from one to three stories in height. The differences between the large and small options are primarily in the power output of the reactors. Both of the small reactors are rated at 600 MWe, while the large options are rated at 1,300 MWe. The physical sizes of the large and small options for each of the technologies are generally the same. In addition to the reactor, the ALWR complex would include an interim spent fuel storage building, a waste treatment facility, a tritium target processing facility, warehouses, and a power conversion facility. Unlike the other technologies, the ALWR would not have a fuel fabrication facility since fuel rods would be obtained from offsite sources. Figure 3.4.2.3-1 shows a representative drawing of an ALWR complex with a natural draft cooling tower shown for illustrative purposes only. The number and arrangements of buildings and support areas are descriptive only and can change significantly as design progresses. The tritium target processing facility would consist of the following two attached structures: a processing building and a support building. The process building would include the tritium extraction processes, laboratory, and other activities associated with handling tritium. The support building contains offices, maintenance areas, and nonradioactive ventilation systems. The type of cooling tower used depends upon where the ALWR is located. In this PEIS dry sites (INEL, NTS and Pantex) would use mechanical draft dry cooling towers and wet sites (ORR and SRS) would use natural draft wet cooling towers. The design of the ALWR would incorporate numerous safety features such as: an emergency power facility to house diesel generators or gas turbines for short-term emergency power to support safety related loads in the event of temporary failure of the offsite power supply; a reactor containment building to limit any release of radioactivity; an emergency core cooling system to makeup coolant in the event of a loss of coolant or a loss of pumping; an emergency shutdown system; and a neutron poison system to inject neutron absorbing material into the reactor vessel. Construction of the ALWR would take about 6 years and require approximately 3,500 workers for the Large ALWR and 2,200 workers for the Small ALWR during the peak construction period. The construction area would be approximately 350 acres. Once constructed, 1 to 2 years would be needed to check out the reactor prior to actual tritium production. Construction and operation requirements for the Large and Small ALWR are given in tables 3.4.2.3-1 and 3.4.2.3-2. Estimated waste generation data for the Large and Small ALWR facility are given in tables 3.4.2.3-3 and 3.4.2.3-4. Figure (Page 3-38) Figure 3.4.2.3-1.-Advanced Light Water Reactor Facility (Typical). Table 3.4.2.3-1.-Advanced Light Water Reactor Construction Requirements Consumption Requirement Large ALWR Small ALWR Material/Resources - - Electrical energy (MWh) 120,000 120,000 Concrete (yd3) 380,000 200,000 Steel (tons) 68,000 50,000 Fuel, liquid (gal) 1,500,000 1,500,000 Water (gal) 200,000,000 120,000,000 Land disturbance (acres) 350 350 Employment - - Total employment 12,600 7,100 (worker years) Peak employment 3,500 2,200 (workers) Construction period 6 6 (years) Source: DOE 1995f. Table 3.4.2.3-2.-Advanced Light Water Reactor Operation Requirements Consumption Requirement Large ALWR Small ALWR Electrical Energy - - (MWh/yr) Wet Site 700,000 380,000 Dry Site 1,100,000 580,000 Electrical Load (MWe) - - Wet Site 96 52 Dry Site 140 75 Fuel - - Gas (ft3/yr) 0 0 Liquid (GPY) 200,000 110,000 Water (MGY) - - Wet site 16,000 7,200 Dry site 90 50 Plant Footprint - - Plant (acres) 350 350 Employment - - Total workers 830 500 Badged workers 210 125 Source: DOE 1995f. Table 3.4.2.3-3.-Advanced Light Water Reactor (Large) Estimated Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Volumes - Annual Average Volume Annual Volume Generated Annual Volume Effluent Generated From Construction From Operations From Operations Category (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) Spent Nuclear Fuel None 55 55a Low-Level - - - Liquid None 24,800 None (5,000,000 gal) Solid None 710 567 Mixed Low-Level - - - Liquid None None None Solid None 6 6 Hazardous - - - Liquid Included in solid Included in solid Included in solid Solid 930 35 35 Nonhazardous (Sanitary) - - - Liquid 134,000 446,000 446,000d (27,000,000 gal) (90,000,000 gal) (90,000,000 gal) Solid 15,000 6,900 2,300 Nonhazardous (Other) - - - Liquid 2,480 Included in sanitary Included in sanitary (500,000 gal) Solid Included in sanitary 5,800 None Table 3.4.2.3-4.-Advanced Light Water Reactor (Small) Estimated Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Volumes - Annual Average Volume Annual Volume Annual Volume Generated From Generated From Effluent From Construction Operations Operations Category (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) Spent Nuclear Fuel None 36 36a Low-Level - - - Liquid None 3,910 None (790,000 gal) Solid None 660 272 Mixed Low-Level - - - Liquid None None None Solid None 6 6 Hazardous - - - Liquid Included in solid Included in solid Included in solid Solid 850 35 35 Nonhazardous (Sanitary) - - - Liquid 74,300 248,000 248,000d (15,000,000 gal) (50,000,000 gal) (50,000,000 gal) Solid 10,000 4,200 1,400 Nonhazardous (Other) - - - Liquid 2,480 Included in sanitary Included in sanitary (500,000 gal) Solid Included in sanitary 3,500 None 3.4.2.4 Accelerator Production of Tritium The APT would be a linear accelerator whose primary purpose would be to produce tritium. A detailed description of the APT technology and its operation is provided in appendix A. The APT accelerates a proton beam in a long tunnel to one of two target/blanket assemblies located in separate target stations. There are two target/blanket concepts being considered in the conceptual design of the Full APT: the helium-3 target and the spallation-induced lithium conversion target. The helium-3 target is the primary target in the Phased APT option. The APT complex would cover approximately 173acres and would be surrounded by a security fence. The accelerator, 3,940 feet in length, would be housed in a concrete tunnel buried 40 to 50 feet underground for radiation shielding. The design of the APT radio frequency power system and its distribution network is similar to that of existing accelerators for which there are decades of operational experience. The existing accelerators have been shown to pose no appreciable health threat to workers and the public. In addition, there is no appreciable danger of interference with communications or the many signal sensitive electronic systems (LANL 1994a:1). The tunnel would be sealed and evacuated during operation but would vent to the atmosphere during shutdown period. The full size facility would consist of 10 cooling towers and 13substations located above-ground along the full length of the underground accelerator. Additionally, there would be two cooling towers for the target/blanket beam stop, located next to the target building. The cooling towers and the substations would be approximately one to two stories in height. The preconceptual design of the APT complex includes: a target building that would house either the helium-3 or the spallation-induced lithium conversion target chambers located in a subterranean structure at the same level as the accelerator; a tritium processing facility to extract tritium from the targets; a klystron remanufacturing and maintenance facility; waste treatment buildings to treat all generated wastes; and various administration, operation, and maintenance facilities. Figure 3.4.2.4-1 shows a rep- resentative drawing of a APT complex. The number and arrangement of buildings and support areas are illustrative only and can change significantly once as design progresses. The design of the APT would incorporate numerous safety features to include: an emergency power facility to house diesel generators or gas turbines for short-term emergency power to support safety related loads in the event of temporary failure of the offsite power supply; multiple sensors and diagnostics which would determine if the accelerator beam is out of acceptable limits in terms of position, energy, size, etc.; redundant cooling systems for all heat-removal systems; and an automatic beam shutoff in the event of a loss of cooling, a misaligned beam, or abnormal radiation levels. Construction of the APT would take about 5 years and require approximately 2,760 workers during the peak construction period. Additional construction area for equipment and materials would not be required since there would be sufficient unencumbered space within the APT boundaries. Once constructed, 1 to 2 years would be needed to check out the accelerator prior to actual tritium production. If desired, a phased construction of the APT could also occur. Under this scenario, initial construction of the APT would complete the majority of the civil engineering and would result in a facility that could produce the steady-state requirement (approximately 50 percent of baseline case). Expansion of the facility could be possible at a later date in order to increase tritium production to the baseline requirements if necessary. This expansion would consist of the addition of another injector leg, a funnel to combine its proton beam with the other, and additional radio frequency power sources to accelerate it. All tables display requirements for both a full production APT and a phased approach to the construction of an APT. Construction and operation requirements for the APT are given in tables 3.4.2.4-1 and 3.4.2.4-2. Estimated waste generation data for the APT complex are given in tables 3.4.2.4-4 and 3.4.2.4-4. An option to collocate a dedicated natural gas-fueled power plant with the APT at each site is also considered. Estimated construction and operation requirements for this power plant are given in tables 3.4.2.4-5 and 3.4.2.4-6. Figure (Page 3-42) Figure 3.4.2.4-1.-Accelerator Production of Tritium Facility Site Layout (Typical). Table 3.4.2.4-1.-Accelerator Production of Tritium Construction Requirements Requirement Consumption - - Full APT Phased APT Material/Resources - - Electrical energy (MWh) 40,000 40,000 Concrete (yd3) 275,000 275,000 Steel (tons) 61,495 55,820 Gasoline, diesel fuel, and 2,110,000 2,110,000 lube oil (gal) Water (gal) 41,700,000 41,700,000 Land Disturbance (acres) 173 173 Employment - - Total employment 6,380 6,380 (worker years) Peak employment 2,760 2,760 (workers) Construction period 5 5 (years) Source: SNL 1995a. Table 3.4.2.4-2.-Accelerator Production of Tritium Operation Requirements - Consumption - (Wet and Dry Sites) Requirement Full APT Phased APT Electrical Energy 3,740,000 2,400,000 (MWh/yr) Electrical Load (MWe) 550 355 Fuel - - Gas (ft3/yr) 0 0 Liquid (GPY) 13,200 13,200 Water (MGY) 1,200 770 Plant Footprint - - Plant (acres) 173 173 Employment - - Total workers 624 624 Badged workers 258 258 Source: SNL 1995a. Table 3.4.2.4-3.- Accelerator Production of Tritium (Full) Estimated Waste Volumes Category Annual Average Volume Annual Volume Generated Annual Volume Effluent Generated From Construction From Operations From Operation (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) Low-Level - - - Liquid None None None Solid None 544 221 Mixed - - - Low-Level Liquid None None None Solid None 6.8 3.9 Hazardous - - - Liquid Included in solid None 0.003 (0.6 gal) Solid 13 2.5 2.5 Nonhazardous (Sanitary) - - - Liquid 1,570 1,210,000 <1,000d (317,000 gal) (245,000,000 gal) <200,000 gal) Solid 5,500 1,240 413 Nonhazardous (Other) - - - Liquid Included in sanitary - Included in sanitary Solid Included in sanitary - None Table 3.4.2.4-4.- Accelerator Production of Tritium (Phased) Estimated Waste Volumes Category Annual Average Volume Annual Volume Annual Volume Generated From Generated From Effluent Construction Operations From Operation (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) Low-Level - - - Liquid None None None Solid None 68 54 Mixed Low-Level - - - Liquid None None None Solid None 3 2.5 Hazardous - - - Liquid Included in solid None 0.003 (0.6 gal) Solid 13 1.2 1.2 Nonhazardous (Sanitary) - - - Liquid 1,570 789,000 <1,000c (317,000 gal) (159,000,000 gal) (<200,000 gal) Solid 5,500 1,240 413 Nonhazardous (Other) - - - Liquid Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Solid Included in sanitary None None Table 3.4.2.4-5.-Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant Construction Requirements Requirement Consumption Land Disturbance (acres) 25 Employment - Total employment (worker years) 300 Peak employment (workers) 225 Construction period (years) 2 Source: Derived from text. Table 3.4.2.4-6.-Accelerator Production of Tritium Power Plant Operation Requirements Requirement Consumption (Wet and Dry Sites) Electrical Energy Produced 3,740,000 (MWh/yr) Electrical Load (MWe) 550 Fuel - Gas (million ft3/yr) 54,200 Liquid (GPY) 0 Water (MGY) 80 Plant Footprint - Plant (acres) 25 Employment - Total workers 75 Source: Derived from text. 3.4.2.5 Commercial Light Water Reactor The commercial light water reactor alternative involves either: 1) the purchase by DOE of an existing operating or partially completed commercial power reactor and the conversion of the facility to tritium production for defense purposes; or 2) the purchase of irradiation services from an operating commercial power plant to produce tritium using DOE supplied tritium target rods. Irradiation services could also be used as a contingency measure to meet the projected tritium requirements for the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile in the event of a national emergency. Of the two types of commercial light water reactors, pressurized water reactors are more readily adaptable than boiling water reactors to the production of tritium because they use burnable poison rods which could be replaced by tritium targets; therefore, only pressurized water reactors are considered for the commercial reactor alternative in this PEIS. Pressurized water reactors are high-temperature, high-pressure reactors that use ordinary light water as the coolant and moderator and are capable of generating large amounts of electricity through a steam turbine-generator. The range of electricity production for these plants is approximately 390 million kWh per year to 6,900 million kWh per year using an assumed annual capacity factor of 62 percent. A typical light water reactor facility includes the reactor building, cooling towers, a switchyard for the transmission of generated electricity, maintenance buildings, administrative buildings, and security facilities. Acreage for existing operating commercial light water reactor facilities varies in size from a low of 84 acres to a high of 30,000 acres. The designs of typical commercial reactors incorporated numerous safety features to include: a reactor containment building to limit any release of radioactivity; an emergency core cooling system for heat removal in the even of a loss of coolant or a loss of pumping; an emergency shutdown system with safety rods independent of the reactor control rods; a neutron poison system to inject neutron-absorbing material into the moderator tank; and a backup system to remove heat from the reactor if the primary coolant fails to circulate. Commercial reactor sites would have to obtain new fuel assemblies with the DOE target rods included from an offsite source. Additionally, irradiated target rods would have to be shipped offsite to the SRS tritium extraction and recycling facilities. The commercial reactor production of tritium alternative includes building new tritium extraction facilities at SRS and upgrading the existing tritium recycling facilities there. Tritium target fabrication could be obtained through commercial vendors or as an option a new facility could be constructed at SRS with the tritium extraction and upgraded recycling facility. All commercial light water reactors have existing NEPA and licensing documents prepared by the NRC to support construction and operation of these facilities. 3.4.3 Tritium Recycling and Extraction The primary mission of the tritium recycling facility is to process and recycle tritium for use in nuclear weapons. This mission includes the steps necessary to empty reservoirs (small pressure vessels containing tritium installed in nuclear weapons), recover the tritium, provide new gas mixtures according to specifications, and reclaim usable reservoirs. Additionally, the tritium recycling facility would perform a full range of analytical, physical, and environmental tests to ensure that the quality and integrity of all reservoirs are maintained throughout their operational life. It would also provide for appropriate waste management, including storage, treatment, and disposal of tritiated wastes. The tritium recycling facility would receive tritium in reservoirs returned from DOD and other activities, or as virgin tritium from the extraction facility that is associated with the tritium supply facility. The reservoirs would be unpacked from their shipping containers in the auxiliary building and taken to the tritium processing building for temporary storage. They would then be emptied and the contained gases would be processed to separate the hydrogen isotopes from other gases, primarily helium-3 (a stable isotope resulting from the radioactive decay of tritium). Prior to being placed into reservoirs, the tritium would undergo a purification process. The empty reservoir bottles would be sent to the tritium auxiliary building to be reclaimed. If reclamation is not possible, the bottles would be disposed of as LLW. Otherwise, they would be refurbished and sent to the tritium processing building to be filled. Reservoirs that have been filled with tritium and sealed would be transferred to the auxiliary building for finishing, where they would be decontaminated, leak tested, inspected, marked, measured for tritium content, and if required, combined with various piece parts necessary for final assembly. The reservoirs would then be placed in storage until they are needed for limited life component exchange, or sent to the assembly and disassembly facility for use in new weapons. Some reservoirs would be placed in the weapon surveillance program. The tritium recycling facility would include testing capability for production, surveillance, and research and development reservoirs. In general, tests on reservoirs filled with tritium would be performed in the tritium processing building, while tests on other bottles or parts of bottles would be performed in the auxiliary building. Tritium recycling could be collocated with tritium supply, or be done in existing facilities at SRS. The commercial light water reactor alternative would use the existing facilities at SRS. At SRS, an upgrade of the existing recycling facilities would be imple- mented rather than construction of a new facility. In the case of commercial light water reactor alternative, an extraction facility and possibly a target fabrication facility, would be constructed in addition to the upgrade of the recycling facilities at SRS. Discussed below are the options for new or upgraded recycling facilities and a new extraction and target fabrication facility to support the commercial light water reactor alternative. 3.4.3.1 New Recycling Facility If the tritium supply and recycling facilities are located at any site other than SRS, a new recycling facility would have to be constructed (figure 3.4.2.1-1). The tritium recycling facility would be housed in two major buildings and in several support facilities. The first building, the tritium processing building, would be a hardened facility designed with systems to contain tritium releases should they occur. The second building, the auxiliary building, would house non-tritium and extremely small amounts of working tritium. These buildings would be located within a 196-acre plant area. Construction, operation, and waste generation data for the new tritium recycling facility are presented in tables 3.4.3.1-1, 3.4.3.1-2, and 3.4.3.1-3, respectively. Figure (Page 3-47) Figure 3.4.3.1-1.-New Tritium Recycling Facility (Typical). Table 3.4.3.1-1.-New Tritium Recycling Facility Construction Requirements Requirement Consumption Material/Resources - Electrical energy (MWh) 10,000 Concrete (yd3) 32,000 Steel (tons) 5,600 Gasoline, diesel fuel, and 260,000 lube oil (gal) Water (gal) 6,100,000 Land Disturbance (acres) 202 Employment - Total employment (worker years) 992 Peak employment (workers) 335 Construction Period (years) 4 Source: DOE 1995g. Table 3.4.3.1-2.-New Tritium Recycling Facility Operation Requirements Requirement Consumption Electrical Energy (MWh/yr) 88,000 Electrical Load (MWe) 16 Fuel - Gas (ft3/yr) 7,000,000 Liquid (GPY) 50,000 Water (MGY) - Wet site 37 Dry site 14 Plant Footprint - Plant (acres) 196 Employment - Total workers 910 Badged workers 400 Source: DOE 1995g. Table 3.4.3.1-3.-New Tritium Recycling Facility Estimated Waste Volumes - Annual Average Volume Annual Volume Generated Annual Volume Generated From Construction From Operations Effluent From Operations Category (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) Low-Level - - - Liquid None None None Solid None 350 117 Mixed Low-Level - - - Liquid None 0.03 0.03 (6 gal) (6 gal) Solid None 2 2 Hazardous - - - Liquid Included in solid None None Solid 0.5 1 1 Nonhazardous (Sanitary) - - - Liquid 4,460 70,800 Nonee (900,000 gal) (14,300,000 gal) Solid 163 7,400 2,470 Nonhazardous (Other) - - - Liquid Included in sanitary Included in sanitary None Solid Included in sanitary 6,400 None 3.4.3.2 Tritium Recycling Facilities Upgrades at Savannah River Site If the tritium supply facilities are located at SRS or at one of the other sites without a collocated recycling facility, the existing tritium recycling facilities would be upgraded. The upgrade presented here, called the unconsolidated upgrade, would result in no buildings closed and no consolidation of tritium handling activities. Buildings 232-H, 232-1H, 234-H, 238-H, and 249-H (figure 3.4.3.2-1), would be upgraded to meet DOE Order 5480.28, Natural Phenomenon Hazards Mitigation. These upgrades would involve the additions of wall and cross bracings to existing beams, strengthening some exterior walls, and reinforcing existing building frames. Additionally, Building 232-H would require an anchor for the service area roof slab as well as an upgrade to the radiation control and monitoring system. Building 234-H would require upgrades to its reservoir storage encased safes which are used to protect filled reservoirs during high winds and earthquakes. No upgrade modifications would be required for buildings 233-H (Replacement Tritium Facility), 235-H, 236-H, and 720-H (SNL 1995a). As a potential mitigation, a consolidation of tritium activities into fewer buildings to minimize tritium emissions and waste is also possible. In this upgrade, called the consolidated upgrade, Building 232-H would be closed and its functions transferred to buildings 233-H and 234-H. As discussed above, upgrades would then be made to buildings 232-1H, 234-H, 238-H, and 249-H. Additionally, Building 233-H would require modifications in order to accept activities transferred from Building 232-H. Construction and operation requirements for the recycling facilities upgrade at SRS are presented in tables 3.4.3.2-1 and 3.4.2.4-6. The estimated waste generation data is shown in tables 3.4.3.2-3 and 3.4.3.2-4. Figure (Page 3-50) Figure 3.4.3.2-1.-Tritium Recycling Facilities Upgrades at Savannah River Site (Generalized). Table 3.4.3.2-1.-Upgraded Tritium Recycling Facilities Construction Requirements Requirement Consumption - - Unconsolidated Consolidated with without Building 232-H Building 232-H Material/Resources - - Electrical energy 2,000 2,000 (MWh) Concrete (yd3) 1,900 2,100 Steel (tons) 210 240 Gasoline, diesel fuel, 16,000 17,000 and lube oil (gal) Water (gal) 130,000 140,000 Land Disturbance NA NA (acres) Employment - - Total employment 62 91 (worker years) Peak employment 26 36 (workers) Construction period 3 3 (years) Source: SR DOE 1995a. Table 3.4.3.2-2.-Upgraded Tritium Recycling Facilities Operation Requirements Requirement Consumption - - Unconsolidated Consolidated with without Building 232-H Building 232-H Electrical Energy 24,000 24,000 (MWh/yr) Electrical Load 3 3 (MWe) Coal (tons) 5,200 5,200 Fuel, Liquid (GPY) 60,000 56,000 Water (MGY) 51 51 Employment - - Total workers 970 910 Badged workers 400 400 Table 3.4.3.2-3.-Upgraded Tritium Recycling Facilities (Unconsolidated-With Building 232-H) Waste Volumes Category Annual Average Volume Annual Volume Annual Volume Generated From Construction Generated From Operations Effluent During Operation (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) Low-Level - - - Liquid None None None Solid None 350 117 Mixed Low-Level - - - Liquid None 0.03 0.03 (6 gal) (6 gal) Solid None 2 2 Hazardous - - - Liquid Included in solid None None Solid <0.3 1 1 Nonhazardous (Sanitary) - - - Liquid 149 158,000 158,000 (30,000 gal) (32,000,000 gal) (32,000,000 gal) Solid 14 7,800 2,600 Nonhazardous (Other) - - - Liquid Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Solid Included in sanitary 6,800 None Table 3.4.3.2-4.-Upgraded Tritium Recycling Facilities (Consolidated-Without Building 232-H) Waste Volumes Category Annual Average Volume Annual Volume Generated Annual Volume Generated During From Operations Effluent During Construction (yd3) Operation (yd3) (yd3) Low-Level - - - Liquid None None None Solid None 350 117 Mixed Low-Level - - - Liquid None 0.03 0.03 (6 gal) (6 gal) Solid None 2 2 Hazardous - - - Liquid Included in solid None None Solid <0.3 1 1 Nonhazardous (Sanitary) - - - Liquid 182 153,000 153,000 (36,l) (31,000,000 gal) (31,000,000 gal) Solid 15 7,4000 2,470 Nonhazardous (Other) - - - Liquid Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Solid Included in sanitary 6,400 None 3.4.3.3 Extraction and Target Fabrication Facilities for Commercial Light Water Reactor The commercial light water reactor alternative does not include a collocated tritium extraction facility at the reactor site. Therefore irradiated DOE target roads would be sent offsite to an extraction facility which would be collocated with the upgraded tritium recycling facility at SRS. Construction, operation, and waste generation data for the com- mercial light water reactor extraction facility are presented in tables 3.4.3.3-1, 3.4.3.3-2, and 3.4.3.3-3, respectively. Target rods not procured commercially would be manufactured at a new facility at SRS collocated with target extraction and upgraded recycling facilities. Construction, operation, and waste generation data for the target fabrication facility are presented in table 3.4.3.3-4, 3.4.3.3-5, and 3.4.3.3-6, respectively. Table 3.4.3.3-1.-Extraction Facility for Commercial Light Water Reactor Construction Requirements Requirement Consumption Material/Resources - Electrical energy (MWh) 1,000 Concrete (yd3) 7,800 Steel (tons) 940 Gasoline, diesel fuel, and 84,000 lube oil (gal) Water (gal) 1,000,000 Land Disturbance (acres) 19 Employment - Total employment (worker years) 326 Peak employment (workers) 144 Construction Period (years) 3 Source: DOE 1995x. Table 3.4.3.3-2.-Extraction Facility for Commercial Light Water Reactor Operation Requirements Requirement Consumption Utility - Electrical energy (MWh) 4,500 Electrical load (MWe) 1.6 Fuel - Gas (ft3/yr) 16,000,000 Liquid (GPY) 17,000 Water (MGY) - Wet site 4,800,000 Plant Footprint - Plant (acres) 15 Employment - Total workers 170 Badged workers 70 Source: DOE 1995x. Table 3.4.3.3-3.-Extraction Facility for Commercial Light Water Reactor Waste Volumes Category Annual Average Annual Volume Annual Volume Volume Generated Generated From Effluent From Construction Operations From Operation (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) Low-Level - - Liquid None None None Solid None 460 92 Mixed Low-Level - - - Liquid None 0.015 0.015 (3 gal) (3 gal) Solid None 3 3 Hazardous - - - Liquid Included in solid Included in solid Included in solid Solid <1 1 1 Nonhazardous (Sanitary) - - - Liquid 1,290 16,870 16,830 (260,000 gal) (3,400,000 gal) (3,400,000 gal) Solid 54 1,300 325 Nonhazardous (Other) - - - Liquid Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Included in sanitary Solid Included in sanitary None None Table 3.4.3.3-4.-Target Fabrication Facility for Commercial Light Water Reactor Construction Requirements Requirement Consumption Material/Resources - Electrical energy (MWh) 2,100 Concrete (yd3) 5,300 Steel (tons) 1,900 Gasoline, diesel fuel, and 70,000 lube oil (gal) Water (gal) 4,000,000 Land Disturbance (acres) 11 Employment - Total employment (worker years) 390 Peak employment (workers) 240 Construction Period (years) 3 Source: DOE 1995z. Table 3.4.3.3-5.-Target Fabrication for Commercial Light Water Reactor Operation Requirements Requirement Consumption Electrical energy (MWh/yr) 1,900 Electrical load (MWe) 0.4 Fuel - Gas (ft3/yr) 0 Liquid (GPY) 1,500 Water (MGY) 3.3 Plant Footprint - Plant (acres) 11 Employment - Total workers 60 Source: DOE 1995z. Table 3.4.3.3-6.-Target Fabrication for Commercial Light Water Reactor Waste Volumes Category Annual Average Volume Annual Volume Annual Volume Generated From Generated From Effluent From Construction Operations Operation (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) Hazardous - - - Liquid 5 Included in solid Included in solid (1,000 gal) Solid None 3 3 Nonhazardous (Sanitary) - - - Liquid 2,376 16,340 16,340 (480,000 gal) (3,300,000 gal) (3,300,000 gal) Solid 5,900 400 400 Nonhazardous (Other) - - - Liquid 2,178 None None (440,000 gal) Solid Included in sanitary None None 3.5 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 established a national policy that whenever feasible, pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source. Under the Act, pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner. Disposal or other releases into the environment should be employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner. Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements dated August 3, 1993, and DOE Order 5400.1 General Environmental Protection Program implement the provisions of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. Pollution prevention is designed to keep pollutants from being released into the environment. Preventive measures could include source reduction, recycling, treatment, and disposal. The emphasis is on source reduction and recycling to prevent the creation of wastes, i.e., waste minimization. Source reduction and waste minimization techniques include good operating practices, technology modifications, input material changes, and product changes. Use and reuse plus reclamation are onsite and offsite recycling techniques. Tritium supply and recycling facility designs would consider and incorporate waste minimization and pollution prevention to the maximum extent practicable. Segregation of activities that generate radioactive and hazardous wastes would be employed, where possible, to avoid the generation of mixed wastes. Where applicable, treatment to separate radioactive and nonradioactive components would be performed to reduce the volume of mixed wastes and provide for cost-effective disposal or recycle. To facilitate waste minimization, where possible, nonhazardous materials would be substituted for those materials that contribute to the generation of hazardous or mixed waste. Production processes would be configured with minimization of waste production given high priority. Material from the waste streams would be treated to facilitate disposal as nonhazardous wastes, where possible. Some designs produce waste quantities or waste forms that could undergo additional reductions by utilizing emerging technologies. Pollution prevention and waste minimization would be major factors in determining the final design of any facility constructed as part of the Complex. Pollution prevention and waste minimization will be analyzed as part of the site-specific analyses and tiered NEPA documents following the decision on tritium supply and recycling facilities. 3.6 Comparison of Tritium Supply and Recycling Alternatives A comparison of the environmental impacts of the tritium supply and recycling alternatives is summarized in tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-2. The tables compare the impacts to environmental resources associated with tritium supply technologies and recycling at each of the five candidate sites and the commercial light water reactor. In addition, impacts associated with No Action are included for a baseline comparison. The table 3.6-1 format presents the impacts of each alternative by resource or issue. Impacts associated with collocation of a tritium supply and recycling alternatives are evaluated for every site except SRS. At SRS, impacts are evaluated for a tritium supply with upgraded recycling. In addition, impacts associated with tritium supply alone alternatives are evaluated for all the candidate sites except SRS. A supply alone alternative does not exist for SRS because of existing recycling facilities. The tritium upgrade at SRS is part of the supply alone alternatives at the other four candidate sites (INEL, NTS, ORR, Pantex and the commercial reactor alternative). For the supply alone alternatives and the commercial reactor alternative, there would be minor impacts associated with upgrading the facilities at SRS. Table 3.6-2 presents the construction and operation impacts of key issues for the commercial reactor alternative. Under No Action (2010), 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. Sites would continue waste management programs to meet the legal requirements and commitments in formal agreements and would proceed with cleanup activities. Production facilities and support roles at specific sites, however, would be downsized or elim- inated in accordance with the reduced workload projected for the year 2010 and beyond. The current DOE missions assumed to continue under No Action are listed in section 3.3 for each candidate site. To aid the reader in understanding the differences in environmental impacts among the PEIS alternatives (particularly the tritium supply technology alternatives i.e., HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and commercial light water reactor), this section presents a brief, qualitative summary comparison of the alternatives. Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-2 present a quantitative com- parison of greater detail. For some of the resource areas evaluated in the PEIS, the analyses indicate that there are no major differences in the environmental impacts among the tritium supply technology and site alternatives. Resource areas where no major differences exist, or where potential environmental impacts are small, are: land resources, air quality, water resources, geology and soils, biotic resources, and socioeconomics. For these resource areas, this general conclusion is particularly true when comparing the operational impacts of the tritium supply facilities. For construction, this general conclusion is also particularly true when comparing among the various types of new tritium supply facilities (e.g., HWR, MHTGR, ALWR, and APT). However, when comparing the potential impacts of constructing a new tritium supply facility against the alternative of using an existing commercial reactor (purchase of irradiation services or purchase and conversion of an existing commercial reactor), the environmental impacts of the latter are clearly fewer because the facility already exists, and, thus, there are minimal construction-related environmental impacts. For tritium recycling, this also applies when comparing the existing tritium recycling facilities at SRS against constructing a new tritium recycling facility at another site. For other resource areas evaluated in this PEIS, the analyses indicate that there are notable environmental impact differences. Resource areas where notable differences exist are: site infrastructure (electrical requirements), human health (from radiological impacts due to accidents), and wastes generated. Each of these resource areas is discussed in greater detail below. Site Infrastructure. Infrastructure and electrical capacity exist at each of the alternative sites to adequately support any of the tritium supply technology alternatives. Nonetheless, because the MHTGR and ALWR technologies could generate electricity while also producing tritium, these technologies could have a positive environmental impact by delaying the need to build some electrical generating facility in the future. This PEIS acknowledges, and qualitatively discusses, these potential "avoided" environmental impacts. The APT, and to a significantly lesser degree the HWR, would be energy consumers. This PEIS assesses the environmental impacts of providing power to the energy consumers. Thus, in terms of environmental impacts, there could be approximately 1,800 MWe of difference (i.e., ALWR generating 1,300 MWe versus an APT consuming 500 MWe) between the tritium supply technologies. For commercial reactors that already exist and produce electrical power, there would be no change to the existing electrical infrastructure. Human Health. There are differences among the tritium supply technology and site alternatives regarding the potential human health impacts from accidents. The potential consequences are directly related to the amount of radioactivity released and the population density near the facility. For each of the tritium supply technology alternatives, the probability of severe accidents occurring is extremely small, on the order of once every millions of years at most. Based upon the PEIS analyses, the ALWR could cause the largest potential impacts to human health from severe accidents, while the MHTGR would have the smallest potential impacts of the reactor technologies. Because the APT does not utilize fissile materials, and there is no significant decay heat, there are virtually no radiological consequences from any APT accidents. Consequently, the APT would have the smallest potential impacts to human health from accidents. The commercial reactor alternatives do not acquire any substantial risks by assuming a tritium-production mission. Regarding the site alternatives, in the event of an accident at sites with small populations (INEL, NTS, and to a lesser extent Pantex), there would be fewer impacts to human health. Because ORR and SRS have larger populations within 50 miles of the proposed facilities, these two sites have greater potential human health impacts than the other sites. Because there are virtually no radiological consequences from any APT accidents, there are no grounds for discrimination among sites in the case of the APT. It is, in essence, site neutral with respect to potential impacts to human health. Generated Wastes Spent Fuel Generation. All of the tritium supply reactor technologies would generate spent fuel. While the MHTGR would generate the greatest volume of spent fuel (because of the graphite moderator), the residual heavy metal content of spent fuel from the ALWR would be the greatest. Reactors providing irradiation services would not generate additional spent fuel over and above what they would otherwise generate during their planned lifetime, assuming that multiple reactors are used and the operating scenarios do not change fuel cycles. However, if only a single reactor were used (irradiation services or purchased and converted), additional spent fuel would likely be generated because the reactor's refueling cycle would be shortened. The APT is not a reactor and would not generate spent fuel. Low-Level Waste. None of the alternatives would generate unacceptably large amounts of LLW. However, of the alternatives, the HWR would create the most LLW in a year (almost 5 times as much as any other reactor alternative). The APT would generate the least amount of LLW annually. In producing tritium, the commercial reactor alternatives would generate additional LLW, but this amount would be less than the new reactor alternatives. With regard to sites, except for Pantex, all sites have the ability to handle and dispose of low level nuclear waste at the site. Low-level nuclear wastes generated at Pantex would need to be shipped to another site for disposal. Table 3.6-1.-Summary Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Tritium Supply and Recycling Alternatives [Page 1 of 50] INEL NTS ORR PANTEX SRS Land Resources-No Action Under No Action there Under No Action there Under No Action there Under No Action there Under No Action there would be no impacts to would be no impacts to would be no impacts to would be no impacts to would be no impacts to land use or visual land use or visual land use or visual land use or visual land use or visual resources. resources. resources. resources. resources. Land Resources-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling Construction and Construction and Construction and Construction and Construction and operation of a tritium operation of a tritium operation of a tritium operation of a tritium operation of a tritium supply would disturb supply would disturb supply would disturb supply would disturb supply and upgraded between 173 and 360 between 173 and 360 between 173 and 360 between 173 and 360 recycling would disturb acres. The disturbance for acres. The disturbance for acres. The disturbance for acres. The disturbance for between 173 and 360 each technology would each technology would be: each technology would be: each technology would be: acres. The disturbance for be: - - - each technology would be: HWR: 260 acres HWR: 260 acres HWR: 260 acres HWR: 260 acres HWR: 260 acres MHGTR: 360 acres MHGTR: 360 acres MHGTR: 360 acres MHGTR: 360 acres MHGTR: 360 acres ALWR: 350 acres ALWR: 350 acres ALWR: 350 acres ALWR: 350 acres ALWR: 350 acres APT: 173 acres APT: 173 acres APT: 173 acres APT: 173 acres APT: 173 acres Collocation of tritium Collocation of tritium Collocation of tritium Collocation of tritium No additional land needed recycling would require an recycling would require an recycling would require an recycling would require an for upgraded recycling additional 202 acres additional 202 acres additional 202 acres additional 202 acres facilities. during construction and during construction and during construction and during construction and 196 acres during operation 196 acres during operation 196 acres during operation 196 acres during operation for all technologies. for all technologies. for all technologies. for all technologies. The existing VRM classifi- The existing VRM classifi- The existing VRM classifi- The existing VRM classifi- The existing VRM classifi- cation of Class 4 visual cation of the proposed site cation of Class 4 visual cation of Class 4 visual cation of Class 4 visual landscape characteristics would change from Class 2 landscape characteristics landscape characteristics landscape characteristics would remain unchanged. to Class 5. Depending on would change to Class 5, would remain unchanged. would change to Class 5, the final siting, the facili- and the use of an evapora- and the use of a wet ties may be visible from a tive cooling system would cooling system would portion of the Desert result in visible plumes result in visible plumes National Wildlife Range. during certain atmospheric during certain atmospheric conditions. conditions. Site Infrastructure-No Action Under No Action the peak Under No Action the peak Under No Action the peak Under No Action the peak Under No Action the peak electrical load requirement electrical load requirement electrical load requirement electrical load requirement electrical load requirement would reduce by 51 MWe. would reduce by 7 MWe. would reduce by would reduce by 1 MWe. would reduce by Annual energy consump- Annual energy consump- 1,304MWe. Annual Annual energy consump- 214MWe. Annual energy tion would remain the tion would remain the energy consumption tion would reduce by consumption would reduce same. same. would reduce by 7,000MWh per year. by 878,000 MWh per year. 11,641,800 MWh per year. Site Infrastructure-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling Collocated tritium supply Collocated tritium supply Collocated tritium supply Collocated tritium supply Tritium supply and and recycling would and recycling would and recycling would and recycling would upgraded recycling would increase the current site increase the current site require less than the increase the current site range from less than the electrical requirement by electrical requirement by current site electrical electrical requirement by current site electrical 11 to 515 MWe. The 55 to 559 MWe. The requirement by 738 to 61 to 565 MWe. The requirement by 163 MWe increase for each technol- increase for each technol- 1,252 MWe. The reduction increase in additional to an increase in the ogy would be: ogy would be: for each technology would current capacity for each current capacity by - - be: technology would be: 336MWe. The change in - - - - current capacity for each - - - - technology would be: HWR: 34 HWR: 78 HWR: 1,237 (less) HWR: 84 MWe HWR: 163 MWe (less) MHGTR: 11 MHGTR: 55 MHGTR: 1,252 (less) MHGTR: 61 MWe MHTGR: 178 MWe (less) Large ALWR: 105 Large ALWR: 149 Large ALWR: 1,192 (less) Large ALWR: 155 MWe Large ALWR: 118 MWe - - - - (less) Small ALWR: 40 Small ALWR: 84 Small ALWR: 1,236 (less) Small ALWR: 90 MWe Small ALWR: 162 MWe - - - - (less) Full APT: 515 Full APT: 559 Full APT: 738 (less) Full APT: 565 MWe Full APT: 336 MWe - - - - (increase) Phased APT: 320 Phased APT: 364 Phased APT: 933 (less) Phased APT: 370 MWe Phased APT: 141 MWe - - - - (increase) The percent of the power The percent of the power The percent of the power The percent of the power The percent of the power pool capacity margin pool capacity margin pool capacity margin pool capacity margin pool capacity margin ranges from 0.45 to 4.15 ranges from 0.53 to 4.79. ranges from 1.14 to 12.44. ranges from 1.53 to 13.93. ranges from 0.35 to 5.27. HWR: 0.62 HWR: 0.72 HWR: 1.47 HWR: 2.09 HWR: 0.49 MHTGR: 0.45 MHTGR: 0.53 MHTGR: 1.14 MHTGR: 1.53 MHTGR: 0.35 Large ALWR: 1.14 Large ALWR: 1.32 Large ALWR: 2.46 Large ALWR: 3.84 Large ALWR: 0.92 Small ALWR: 0.67 Small ALWR: 0.77 Small ALWR: 1.50 Small ALWR: 2.24 Small ALWR: 0.50 Full APT: 4.15 Full APT: 4.79 Full APT: 12.44 Full APT: 13.93 Full APT: 5.27 Phased APT: 2.72 Phased APT: 3.14 Phased APT: 8.15 Phased APT: 9.13 Phased APT: 3.40 Site Infrastructure-Tritium Supply Alone The tritium supply alone The tritium supply alone The tritium supply alone No tritium supply alone. would reduce the peak would reduce the peak would reduce the peak The tritium supply alone load requirement above by load requirement above by load requirement above by would reduce the peak 16 MWe for all technolo- 16 MWe for all technolo- 16 MWe for all technolo- load requirement above by gies. gies. gies. 16 MWe for all technolo- gies. Air Quality and Acoustics-No Action Under No Action no Under No Action no Under No Action no Under No Action no Under No Action no change from existing con- change from existing con- change from existing con- change from existing con- change from existing con- ditions. ditions. ditions. ditions. ditions. Air Quality and Acoustics-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling Construction of collocated Construction of collocated Construction of collocated Construction of collocated Construction of collocated tritium supply and tritium supply and tritium supply and tritium supply and tritium supply and recycling facilities would recycling facilities would recycling facilities would recycling facilities would upgraded recycling facili- result in exceedance of result in exceedance of result in exceedance of result in exceedance of ties would result in 24-hour PM10 and TSP 24-hour PM10 standards. 24-hour PM10 and TSP 24-hour PM10 standard. exceedance of 24-hour standards. Air pollutant Air pollutant concentration standards. Air pollutant Air pollutant concentration PM10 standards. Air concentration would would increase during concentration would would increase during pollutant concentration increase during operation operation but would be increase during operation operation but would be would increase during but would be within stan- within standards. Noise but would be within stan- within standards. Noise operation but would be dards. Noise levels would levels would increase dards. Noise levels would levels would increase within standards. Noise increase during construc- during construction and increase during construc- during construction and levels would increase tion and operation. operation. tion and operation. operation. during construction and operation. Air Quality and Acoustics-Tritium Supply Alone Construction and Construction and Construction and Construction and No tritium supply alone. operation air and noise operation air and noise operation air and noise operation air and noise emissions for the tritium emissions for the tritium emissions for the tritium emissions for the tritium supply alone would be supply alone would be supply alone would be supply alone would be slightly less than those slightly less than those slightly less than those slightly less than those expected above. expected above. expected above. expected above. Water Resources-No Action Under No Action there Under No Action there Under No Action there Under No Action there Under No Action there would be no impacts to would be no impacts to would be no impacts to would be no impacts to would be no impacts to water resources. water resources. water resources. water resources. water resources. Water Resources-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling Surface water would not Surface water would not Surface water use for col- Surface water would not Surface water would not be used during construc- be used during construc- located supply and be used during construc- be used during construc- tion. tion. recycling facilities would tion. tion. range from 10 to 35 MGY during construction. The surface water use and cor- responding percentage increase by technology would be: HWR: 23 (1 percent) MHTGR: 19 (1 percent) Large ALWR: 35 (2 percent) Small ALWR: 22 (1 percent) APT: 10 (<1 percent) Groundwater use would Groundwater use would Groundwater would not be Groundwater would not be Groundwater use would range from 10 to 35 MGY range from 10 to 35 MGY used during construction used during construction. range from 8 to 33 MGY during construction. The during construction. The or operation of any collo- Reclaimed wastewater use during construction. The groundwater use by tech- groundwater use by tech- cated tritium supply and would range from 10 to groundwater use by tech- nology would be: nology would be: recycling. 35MGY during construc- nology would be: - - tion. The reclaimed waste- - - - water use by technology - - - would be: - HWR: 23 HWR: 23 HWR: 23 HWR: 21 MHTGR: 19 MHTGR: 19 MHTGR: 19 MHTGR: 18 Large ALWR: 35 Large ALWR: 35 Large ALWR: 35 Large ALWR: 33 Small ALWR: 22 Small ALWR: 22 Small ALWR: 22 Small ALWR: 20 APT : 10 APT: 10 APT : 10 APT: 8 The total percent of The total percent of No groundwater use. The total percent of The total percent of groundwater use increase groundwater use increase reclaimed wastewater use groundwater use increase during construction by during construction by increase during during construction by technology would be: technology would be: construction by technology would be: - - technology would be: - - - - - HWR: 1 HWR: 3 HWR: <1 HWR: <1 MHTGR: 1 MHTGR: 3 MHTGR: <1 MHTGR: <1 Large ALWR: 2 Large ALWR: 5 Large ALWR: <1 Large ALWR: 1 Small ALWR: 1 Small ALWR: 3 Small ALWR: <1 Small ALWR: <1 Full APT: <1 Full APT: 1 Full APT: <1 Full APT: <1 Phased APT: <1 Phased APT: 1 Phased APT: <1 Phased APT: <1 Water Resources-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling No construction will take No construction will take No construction will take No construction will take No construction will take place in 100- or 500-year place in areas designated place in areas designated place in areas designated place in areas designated floodplains. as 100-year floodplains, as 100-year floodplains, as 100-year floodplains, as 100-year floodplains, however a 500-year flood however a 500-year flood however a 500-year flood however a 500-year flood plain assessment would be plain assessment would be plain assessment would be plain assessment would be required. required. required. required. Stormwater runoff would Stormwater runoff would Stormwater runoff would Stormwater runoff would Stormwater runoff would have negligible impacts on have negligible impacts on have negligible impacts on have negligible impacts on have negligible impacts on surface water during con- surface water during con- surface water during con- surface water during con- surface water during con- struction and operation. struction and operation. struction and operation. struction and operation. struction and operation. Surface water would not Surface water would not Operation surface water Surface water would not Operation surface water be used during operation. be used during operation. requirements would range be used during operation. requirements would range from 784 to 16,014 MGY. from 799 to 15,546MGY. The surface water use and The surface water use and corresponding percentage corresponding percentage increase by technology increase by technology would be: would be: HWR: 5,914 (320 percent) HWR: 5,888 (30 percent) MHTGR: 4,014 MHTGR: 4,006 (217 percent) (20 percent) Large ALWR: 16,014 Large ALWR: 15,546 (866 percent) (78 percent) Small ALWR: 7,214 Small ALWR: 7,186 (390 percent) (36 percent) Full APT: 1,214 Full APT: 1,229 (66 percent) (6 percent) Phased APT: 784 Phased APT: 799 (42 percent) (4 percent) Water Resources-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling No blowdown discharges No blowdown discharges Blowdown discharges to No blowdown discharges Blowdown discharges to to surface water. to surface water. surface waters would to surface water. surface waters would range from 168 to range from 159 to 6,192MGY. Blowdown 6,200MGY. Blowdown discharges to surface discharges to surface waters by technology waters by technology would be: would be: HWR: 2,314 HWR: 2,304 MHTGR: 1,618 MHTGR: 1,608 Large ALWR: 6,202 Large ALWR: 6,192 Small ALWR: 2,818 Small ALWR: 2,808 Full APT: 250 Full APT: 240 Phased APT: 178 Phased APT: 158 Groundwater requirements Groundwater requirements Groundwater would not be Groundwater would not be Groundwater requirements for operation would range for operation would range used for operation. used for operation. for operation would range from 44 to 1,214MGY. from 44 to 1,214MGY. Reclaimed wastewater from 22 to 105MGY. The The groundwater use by The groundwater use by requirements for operation groundwater use by tech- technology would be: technology would be: would range from 44 to nology would be: - - 1,214MGY. The ground- - - - water use by technology - HWR: 62 HWR: 62 would be: HWR: 63 MHTGR: 44 MHTGR: 44 HWR: 62 MHTGR: 45 Large ALWR: 104 Large ALWR: 104 MHTGR: 44 Large ALWR: 105 Small ALWR: 64 Small ALWR: 64 Large ALWR: 104 Small ALWR: 65 Full APT: 1,214 Full APT: 1,214 Small ALWR: 64 Full APT: 22 Phased APT: 784 Phased APT: 784 Full APT: 1,214 Phased APT: 22 Phased APT: 784 Water Resources-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling The total percent increase The total percent increase No groundwater use. The total percent of The total percent of in groundwater use during in groundwater use during available reclaimed waste- groundwater use during operation by technology operation by technology water use during operation operation by technology would be: would be: by technology would be: would be: HWR: 3 HWR: 9 HWR: 1 HWR: 2 MHTGR: 2 MHTGR: 7 MHTGR: 1 MHTGR: 1 Large ALWR: 5 Large ALWR: 16 Large ALWR: 2 Large ALWR: 3 Small ALWR: 3 Small ALWR: 10 Small ALWR: 2 Small ALWR: 2 Full APT: 61 Full APT: 181 Full APT: 28 Full APT: <1 Phased APT: 39 Phased APT: 117 Phased APT: 18 Phased APT: <1 Total increase in ground- Groundwater withdrawals water use for all the tech- during operation would nologies except APT not exceed the lowest would be approximately estimated aquifer recharge less than 1 percent of the rate for all technologies. INEL groundwater allot- ment; the APT groundwa- ter use represents an increase of approximately 11 percent of the INEL groundwater allotment. Water Resources-Tritium Supply Alone The groundwater require- The groundwater require- No groundwater would be The available reclaimed No tritium supply alone. ment for the tritium supply ment for the tritium supply used. Total surface water wastewater requirement alone would be 1.5MGY alone would be 1.5MGY requirement for the tritium for the tritium supply alone less than for collocation less than for collocation supply alone would be would be 1.5MGY less during construction and during construction and 1.5MGY less than for than for collocation during 14MGY less than for col- 14MGY less than for col- collation during construc- construction and 14MGY location during operation location during operation tion and 37MGY less than less than for collocation for all technologies. No for all technologies. No for collocation during during operation for all surface water would be surface water would be operation for all technolo- technologies. No surface used. used. gies. water or groundwater would be used. Geology and Soils-No Action Under No Action there Under No Action there Under No Action there Under No Action there Under No Action there would be no impacts to would be no impacts to would be no impacts to would be no impacts to would be no impacts to geology or soils. geology or soils. geology or soils. geology or soils. geology or soils. Geology and Soils-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling Construction and Construction and Construction and Construction and Construction and operation for collocated operation for collocated operation for collocated operation for collocated operation of tritium supply supply and recycling or the supply and recycling or the supply and recycling or the supply and recycling or the with upgraded recycling tritium supply alone would tritium supply alone would tritium supply alone would tritium supply alone would would neither affect nor be neither affect nor be neither affect nor be neither affect nor be neither affect nor be affected by geological con- affected by geological con- affected by geological con- affected by geological con- affected by geological con- ditions. ditions. ditions. ditions. ditions. The soil disturbed area for The soil disturbed area for The soil disturbed area for The soil disturbed area for collocated supply and collocated supply and collocated supply and The soil disturbed area for tritium supply with recycling would range recycling would range recycling would range collocated supply and upgraded recycling would from 375 to 562 acres. The from 375 to 562 acres. The from 375 to 562 acres. The recycling would range range from 173 to acres disturbed by each acres disturbed by each acres disturbed by each from 375 to 562 acres. The 360acres. The acres technology would be: technology would be: technology would be: acres disturbed by each disturbed by each technol- HWR: 462 HWR: 462 HWR: 462 technology would be: ogy would be: MHTGR: 562 MHTGR: 562 MHTGR: 562 HWR: 462 HWR: 260 ALWR: 552 ALWR: 552 ALWR: 552 MHTGR: 562 MHTGR: 360 APT: 375 APT: 375 APT: 375 ALWR: 552 ALWR: 350 APT: 375 APT: 173 Geology and Soils-Tritium Supply Alone The disturbed area for the The disturbed area for the The disturbed area for the The disturbed area for the No tritium supply alone. tritium supply alone would tritium supply alone would tritium supply alone would tritium supply alone would be 202 acres less. be 202 acres less. be 202 acres less. be 202 acres less. Soil erosion due to wind Soil erosion due to wind Soil erosion due to wind Soil erosion due to wind Soil erosion due to wind and stormwater runoff and stormwater runoff and stormwater runoff and stormwater runoff and stormwater runoff would be minor. would be minor. would be minor. would be minor. would be minor. Biotic Resources-No Action Under No Action there Under No Action there Under No Action there Under No Action there Under No Action there would be no impacts to would be no impacts to would be no impacts to would be no impacts to would be no impacts to biotic resources. biotic resources. biotic resources. biotic resources. biotic resources. Biotic Resources-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling Construction and Construction and Construction and Construction and Construction and operation of a collocated operation of a collocated operation of a collocated operation of a collocated operation of a tritium tritium supply and tritium supply and tritium supply and recy- tritium supply and recy- supply with upgraded recycling or supply alone recycling or supply alone cling, or supply alone cling, or supply alone recycling, would affect ter- would affect terrestrial would affect terrestrial would affect terrestrial would affect terrestrial restrial resources. The resources. The impact resources. The impact resources. The impact resources. The impact impact would vary by the would vary by the acreage would vary by the acreage would vary by the acreage would vary by the acreage acreage disturbed during disturbed during construc- disturbed during construc- disturbed during construc- disturbed during construc- construction for each tech- tion for each technology tion for each technology tion for each technology tion for each technology nology (see geology and (see geology and soils for (see geology and soils for (see geology and soils for (see geology and soils for soils for acreage). acreage). acreage). acreage). acreage). Impacts from cooling Impacts from cooling Salt drift from wet cooling Impacts from cooling Salt drift from wet cooling system salt drift are system salt drift are towers would likely system salt drift are towers would likely possible with APT. possible with APT. impact less than 13 acres possible with APT. impact less than 13 acres during operation for all during operation for all technologies. technologies. Wetlands and aquatic Wetlands and aquatic Without appropriate miti- Without appropriate miti- Without appropriate miti- resources would not be resources would not be gation measures, increased gation measures, playa gation measures, construc- affected. affected. stream flow from opera- wetlands could be tion and operational tional discharges could degraded by discharges, discharges to an onsite affect wetland and aquatic aquatic resources would stream could affect plant communities. not be affected. wetland and aquatic com- munities. No Federal-listed threat- One Federal-listed threat- No Federal-listed threat- One Federal-listed threat- No Federal-listed threat- ened or endangered ened species, the desert ened or endangered ened species, the bald ened or endangered species would be affected tortoise, could be affected species would be affected eagle, and six Federal species would be affected during construction or during construction and during construction or candidate or state-listed during construction or operation, but several operation. Several Federal operation, but several species may be affected by operation, but several Federal candidates or candidate or state-listed Federal candidates or construction activities. Federal candidates or state-listed species may be species may be affected. state-listed species may be state-listed species may be affected. affected. affected. Biotic Resources-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling The ferruginous hawk The ferruginous hawk Four state-listed raptors The black tern, white- The potentially affected would lose foraging could lose foraging habitat would lose potential faced ibis, ferruginous species include the awned habitat equal to the amount equal to the amount of land nesting and foraging hawk, loggerhead shrike, meadow-beauty, green- of land disturbed for each disturbed for each technol- habitat equal to the amount and bald eagle could lose fringed orchid, Florida technology during con- ogy during construction of disturbed land for each foraging and/or nesting false loosestrife, beak- struction and operation. and operation. The logger- technology, however this habitat equal to the amount rush, star-nosed mole and The Townsend's western head shrike could lose type of habitat is abundant of land disturbed for each the eastern tiger sala- big-eared bat may roost foraging and breeding in the area. The Tennessee technology during con- mander would lose and forage throughout the habitats well. Neither dace and hellbender, both struction. The swift fox foraging habitat equal to disturbed area during con- species should be state-listed, could be would lose potential the disturbed land during struction and forage at adversely affected due to affected by construction. foraging and denning construction for each tech- stormwater retention the large extent of nearby habitat. The Texas horned nology. ponds during operation. suitable habitat. lizard could be impacted during land clearing activi- ties. Cultural and Paleontological Resources-No Action Under No Action there Under No Action there Under No Action there Under No Action there Under No Action there would be no impact to would be no impact to would be no impact to would be no impact to would be no impact to cultural and paleontologi- cultural and paleontologi- cultural and paleontologi- cultural and paleontologi- cultural and paleontologi- cal resources. cal resources. cal resources. cal resources. cal resources. Cultural and Paleontological Resources-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling Some NRHP-eligible pre- Some NRHP-eligible pre- Some NRHP-eligible pre- Some NRHP-eligible pre- Three NRHP-eligible historic and historic historic and historic historic and historic historic and historic historic sites occur within resources may occur resources may occur resources may occur resources may occur the area proposed for con- within the tritium supply within the tritium supply within the tritium supply within the tritium supply struction and operation of site. site. site. site. a tritium supply. No pre- historic resources would be affected. Native American resources Native American resources Native American resources Native American resources Native American resources may be affected by land may be affected by land may be affected by land may be affected by land may be affected by land disturbance and audio or disturbance and audio or disturbance and audio or disturbance and audio or disturbance and audio or visual intrusions. visual intrusions. visual intrusions. visual intrusions. visual intrusions. Paleontological resources Paleontological resources Paleontological resources Paleontological resources Paleontological resources may be affected when may be affected. may be affected. may be affected. may be affected. excavation exceeds 50 feet. Cultural and Paleontological Resources-Tritium Supply Alone Impacts to cultural and Impacts to cultural and Impacts to cultural and Impacts to cultural and No tritium supply alone. paleontological resources paleontological resources paleontological resources paleontological resources from tritium supply alone from tritium supply alone from tritium supply alone from tritium supply alone would be less. would be less. would be less. would be less. Socioeconomics-No Action Under No Action INEL Under No Action NTS Under No Action ORR Under No Action Pantex Under No Action SRS employment decreased by employment decreased by employment decreased by employment increased by employment decreased by 1,000 persons between 1,170 persons between 300 persons between 1990 1,000 persons between 2,000 persons between 1990 and 1994 to 10,100 1990 and 1994 to 6,850 and 1994 to 15,000 1990 and 1994 to 3,400 1990 and 1994 to 20,300 persons, and will remain at persons and will remain at persons, and will remain at persons. It will decrease to persons. It will decrease to this level through 2020. this level through 2020. this level through 2020. 1,790 in 2010 and is 16,900 by 2010 and is expected to remain at this expected to remain at this level through 2020. level through 2020. Socioeconomics-No Action Under No Action employ- Under No Action employ- Under No Action employ- Under No Action employ- Under No Action employ- ment in the 63 is expected ment in the regional ment in the regional ment in the regional ment in the regional to grow by less than economic area is expected economic area is expected economic area is expected economic area is expected 1percent annually through to grow by less than to grow by less than to grow by less than to grow by less than 2009, and then decrease by 1percent annually through 1percent annually through 1percent annually through 1percent annually less than 1 percent 2009, and then continue to 2009, and then decrease by 2020. between 2001 and 2020. annually through 2020. increase by less than less than 1 percent 1percent annually through annually through 2020. 2020. Under No Action unem- Under No Action unem- Under No Action unem- Under No Action unem- Under No Action unem- ployment is expected to be ployment is expected to be ployment is expected to be ployment is expected to be ployment is expected to be at 6.4 percent between at 5 percent between 2001 at 6.2 percent between at 4.6 percent between at 4.8 percent between 2001 and 2020. Per capita and 2020. Per capita 2001 and 2020. Per capita 2001 and 2020. Per capita 2001 and 2020. Per capita income is expected to income is expected to income is expected to income is expected to income is expected to increase from $17,800 to increase from $23,600 to increase from $17,900 to increase from $22,300 to increase from $18,300 to $20,900. $25,100. $20,700. $25,700. $21,000. Under No Action popula- Under No Action popula- Under No Action popula- Under No Action popula- tion and housing annual tion and housing annual tion and housing annual Under No Action popula- tion and housing annual average increase is average increase is average increase is tion and housing annual average increase is expected to be less than 1 expected to be 1 percent expected to be 1 percent average increase is expected to be less than percent through 2010. through 2020. through the year 2009 and expected to be less than 1percent through 2010. less than 1 percent 1percent through 2020. between 2010 and 2020. Population is expected to Population is expected to Population is expected to Population is expected to Population is expected to reach 207,300 in 2010 and reach 1,020,900 in 2010 reach 561,000 in 2010 and reach 205,100 in 2010 and reach 454,900 in 2010 and 215,200 in 2020. and 1,103,500 in 2020. 586,000 in 2020. 209,000 in 2020. 473,000 in 2020. Socioeconomics-No Action Under No Action total Under No Action total Under No Action total Under No Action total Under No Action total revenue and expenditures revenue and expenditures revenue and expenditures revenue and expenditures revenue and expenditures for the ROI counties, cities for the ROI counties, cities for the ROI counties, cities for the ROI counties, cities for the ROI counties, cities and school districts is and school districts is and school districts is and school districts is and school districts is expected to increase by an expected to increase by an expected to increase by an expected to increase by an expected to increase by an annual average of less than annual average of less than annual average of approxi- annual average of less than annual average of less than 1 percent from 2001 to 1 percent to 3 percent mately 1 percent or less 1 percent through 2020. 1 percent through 2020. 2020. between 2001 and 2005, through 2020. and by 1 to 2 percent between 2005 and 2010. Between 2010 and 2020, annual increases of less than 1 percent are expected. Socioeconomics-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling Employment in the Employment in the Employment in the Employment in the Employment in the regional economic area regional economic area regional economic area regional economic area regional economic area would increase by 7,200 to would increase by between would increase by 8,000 to would increase by 7,300 to would increase by 6,900 to 10,800 persons during 9,100 to 13,700 persons 12,000 persons during 10,900 persons during 10,800 persons during peak construction when during peak construction peak construction when peak construction when peak construction of collocating tritium supply when collocating tritium collocating tritium supply collocating tritium supply tritium supply and and recycling. The supply and recycling. The and recycling. The and recycling. The upgraded recycling. The increase by technology increase by technology increase by technology increase by technology increase by technology would be: would be: would be: would be: would be: HWR: 7,500 HWR: 9,500 HWR: 8,300 HWR: 7,600 HWR: 7,200 MHTGR: 7,200 MHTGR: 9,100 MHTGR: 8,000 MHTGR: 7,300 MHTGR: 6,900 ALWR: 10,800 ALWR: 13,700 ALWR: 12,000 ALWR: 10,900 ALWR: 10,800 APT: 8,750 APT: 11,100 APT: 9,700 APT: 8,800 APT: 8,500 Socioeconomics-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling Unemployment in the Unemployment in the Unemployment in the Unemployment in the Unemployment in the regional economic area regional economic area regional economic area regional economic area regional economic area would decrease from would decrease from would decrease from would decrease from would decrease from 6.4percent (the projected 5percent (the projected 6.2percent (the projected 4.6percent (the projected 4.8percent (the projected baseline) to 4.5 percent for baseline) to 3.9 percent for baseline) to 5.2 percent to baseline) to 2.2 percent baseline) to 4 to 3.9 all technologies during all technologies during 4.8 percent during peak during peak construction. percent during peak con- peak construction. peak construction. construction. The The estimated unemploy- struction. The estimated estimated unemployment ment by technology would unemployment by technol- by technology would be: be: ogy would be: HWR: 5.2 percent HWR: 2.2 percent HWR: 3.9 percent MHTGR: 5.2 percent MHTGR: 2.2 percent MHTGR: 4 percent ALWR: 4.8 percent ALWR: 2.2 percent ALWR: 3.9 percent APT: 5 percent APT: 2.2 percent APT: 3.9 percent Population and housing Population and housing Population and housing Population and housing Population and housing demand within the ROI demand within the ROI demand within the ROI demand within the ROI demand within the ROI would increase by 5 to would not increase by would not increase by would increase by 3 to would increase by 1 to 9percent during construc- more than 2 percent over more than 1 percent during 7percent during construc- 3percent during construc- tion of a collocated tritium No Action during con- construction for all tech- tion of a collocated tritium tion of a tritium supply and supply and recycling struction for all technolo- nologies. supply and recycling upgraded recycling facility. The increase by gies during the first facility. The increase by facility. The increase by technology would be: 3years. HWR and technology would be: technology would be: - MHTGR would have a - - - continued annual demand - - - of less than 2 percent. - - - ALWR and would have an - - - annual demand growth of - - - 1 percent until peak opera- - - - tion. - - - - - HWR: 5 percent HWR: 3 percent HWR: 1 percent MHTGR: 5 percent MHTGR: 3 percent MHTGR: 1 percent ALWR: 9 percent ALWR: 7 percent ALWR: 3 percent APT: 6.5 percent APT: 5 percent APT: 1 percent Socioeconomics-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling Employment in the Employment in the Employment in the Employment in the Employment in the regional economic area regional economic area regional economic area regional economic area regional economic area would increase by 4,100 to would increase by 4,600 to would increase by 4,300 to would increase by 4,400 to would increase by 1,600 to 4,900 persons during full 5,500 persons during full 5,200 persons during full 5,300 persons during full 2,400 persons during full operation. The increase by operation. The increase by operation. The increase by operation. The increase by operation. The increase by technology would be: technology would be: technology would be: technology would be: technology would be: HWR: 4,900 HWR: 5,500 HWR: 5,200 HWR: 5,300 HWR: 2,400 MHTGR: 4,900 MHTGR: 5,500 MHTGR: 5,100 MHTGR: 5,300 MHTGR: 2,300 ALWR: 4,700 ALWR: 5,200 ALWR: 4,900 ALWR: 5,000 ALWR: 2,100 APT: 4,100 APT: 4,600 APT: 4,300 APT: 4,400 APT: 1,600 Unemployment in the Unemployment in the Unemployment in the Unemployment in the Unemployment in the regional economic area regional economic area regional economic area regional economic area regional economic area would decrease from would decrease from would decrease from would decrease from would decrease from 6.4percent (the projected 5percent (the projected 6.2percent (the projected 4.6percent (the projected 4.8percent (the projected baseline) to 4.9 to baseline) to 4.4 to baseline) to 5.7 to baseline) to 2.8 to baseline) to 4.6 to 4.6percent during full 4.3percent during full 5.6percent during full 2.5percent during full 4.5percent during full operation. The estimated operation. The estimated operation. The estimated operation. The estimated operation. The estimated unemployment by technol- unemployment by technol- unemployment by technol- unemployment by technol- unemployment by technol- ogy would be: ogy would be: ogy would be: ogy would be: ogy would be: HWR: 4.6 percent HWR: 4.3 percent HWR: 5.6 percent HWR: 2.5 percent HWR: 4.5 percent MHTGR: 4.6 percent MHTGR: 4.3 percent MHTGR: 5.6 percent MHTGR: 2.5 percent MHTGR: 4.6 percent ALWR: 4.7 percent ALWR: 4.4 percent ALWR: 5.6 percent ALWR: 2.7 percent ALWR: 4.6 percent APT: 4.9 percent APT: 4.4 percent APT: 5.7 percent APT: 2.8 percent APT: 4.6 percent Population and housing Population and housing Population and housing Population and housing Population and housing demand within the ROI demand within the ROI demand within the ROI demand within the ROI demand within the ROI would increase by would increase by no more would not increase by would not increase by would not increase by 2percent for all technolo- than 1 percent for all tech- more than 1 percent for all more than 2 percent for all more than 1 percent for all gies during operation. nologies during operation. technologies during opera- technologies, except APT technologies during opera- tion. where it would not tion. increase by more than 1percent, during opera- tion. Socioeconomics-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling Per capita income in the Per capita income in the Per capita income in the Per capita income in the Per capita income in the regional economic area regional economic area regional economic area regional economic area regional economic area would increase by an would increase by an would increase by an would increase by an would increase by an annual average of approxi- annual average of annual average of annual average of no more annual average of mately 1 to 2 percent approximately 1 percent 1percent during peak con- than 1 percent during peak approximately 1 percent during peak construction during peak construction struction and full operation construction and full during peak construction and 1 percent during full and full operation for all for all technologies. operation for all and full operation for all operation. technologies. technologies. technologies. With a collocated tritium With a collocated tritium With a collocated tritium With a collocated tritium With a tritium supply and supply and recycling supply and recycling supply and recycling supply and recycling upgraded recycling facility facility total revenues and facility total revenues and facility total revenues and facility total revenues and total revenues and expen- expenditures for most ROI expenditures for most ROI expenditures for most ROI expenditures for most ROI ditures for most ROI counties, cities, and school counties, cities, and school counties, cities, and school counties, cities, and school counties, cities, and school districts would increase by districts would increase by districts would increase by districts would increase by districts would increase by an annual average between an annual average between an annual average of an annual average of 1 to an annual average of less 2 and less than 1 percent 1 and 4 percent for all tech- approximately 1 percent or 3percent through the year than 1 percent through the through the year 2005 and nologies in the first 3 years less through 2010. 2005 then decrease year 2020 for all technolo- between 1 and 0 percent of construction. After the Between 2010 and 2020 annually by 1 percent until gies except ALWR. For through the year 2010 for peak construction year, total revenue and expendi- the year 2010. For all tech- the ALWR, total revenue all technologies except there would be increases of tures are both expected to nologies total revenues and expenditure within the ALWR. For the ALWR, 1 to 2 percent annually increase by an annual and expenditures are ROI would increase total revenue and expendi- until 2010. Total revenue average of less than expected to increase at an between 4 percent and less ture within the ROI would and expenditure annual 1percent for all technolo- annual average of less than than 1 percent in the first 3 increase between 4 percent average increases of less gies. 1 percent between 2010 years of construction and and less than 1 percent in than 1 percent to 2 percent and 2020. remain flat until 2010. the first 3 years of con- between 2001 and 2005 Between 2010 and 2020, struction and decrease 1 to would be expected for the total revenue and expendi- 2percent annually through MHTGR and APT. Annual tures would increase by an the year 2010. average increases of less annual average of less than than 1 to 4percent 1 percent. between 2001 and 2005 would be expected for the ALWR. Socioeconomics-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling Total revenues and expen- Revenue and expenditure - - - ditures for all technologies annual average would would increase by annual increase 1 percent through averages of less than the year 2020 for all 1percent through the year technologies. 2020. Traffic conditions would Traffic conditions would Traffic conditions would Traffic conditions would Traffic conditions would worsen slightly due to worsen slightly due to worsen slightly due to worsen slightly on site worsen slightly due to increased traffic and con- increased traffic and con- increased traffic and con- access roads due to increased traffic and con- gestion on site access gestion on site access gestion on site access increased traffic and con- gestion on site access roads, particularly on U.S. roads, particularly on roads, particularly on Bear gestion, particularly on roads, particularly on State Route 20/26, the primary Mercury Highway, the Creek Road, the primary Farm-to-Market Road 683, Route 125, the primary access route. primary access route. access route. the primary access route. access route. Socioeconomics-Tritium Supply Alone The effects on The effects on The effects on The effects on No tritium supply alone. employment and income employment and income employment and income employment and income for the tritium supply alone for the tritium supply alone for the tritium supply alone over for the tritium supply would be slightly less than would be slightly less than would be slightly less than alone would be slightly the effects of collocation the effects of collocation the effects of collocation less than the effects of with recycling for all with recycling for all with recycling for all collocation with recycling technologies. technologies. technologies. for all technologies. Population and housing Population and housing Population and housing Population and housing No tritium supply alone. demands in the ROI during demands in the ROI during demands in the ROI during demands in the ROI during construction of the tritium construction of the tritium construction of the tritium construction of the tritium supply alone would not supply alone would not supply alone would not supply alone would not increase by more than 1 to increase by more than 2 increase by more than 1 increase by more than 1 to 8 percent over No Action. percent over No Action for percent over No Action for 6 percent over No Action. The increase by all technologies. all technologies. The increase by technology would be: technology would be: - - HWR: 4 percent HWR: 2 percent MHTGR: 4 percent MHTGR: 2 percent ALWR: 8 percent ALWR: 6 percent APT: 5.5 percent APT: 4 percent Socioeconomics-Tritium Supply Alone Population and housing Population and housing Population and housing Population and housing No tritium supply alone. demands in the ROI during demands in the ROI during demands in the ROI during demands in the ROI during operation of the tritium operation of the tritium operation of the tritium operation of the tritium supply alone would not supply alone would not supply alone would not supply alone would not increase by more than 1 increase by more than 1 increase by more than 1 increase by more than 1 percent over No Action for percent over No Action for percent over No Action for percent over No Action for all technologies. all technologies. all technologies. all technologies. Revenues and expendi- Revenues and expendi- Revenues and expendi- Revenues and expendi- - tures with the tritium tures with the tritium tures with the tritium tures with the tritium supply alone would supply alone would supply alone would supply alone would increase for all ROI increase for all ROI increase for all ROI increase for all ROI county, city and school dis- county, city and school dis- county, city and school dis- county, city and school dis- tricts, but these increases tricts, but these increases tricts, but these increases tricts, but these increases would be less than collo- would be less than collo- would be less than collo- would be less than collo- cating with recycling for cating with recycling for cating with recycling for cating with recycling for all technologies. all technologies. all technologies. all technologies. The effects on site access The effects on site access The effects on site access The effects on site access - routes for the tritium routes for the tritium routes for the tritium routes for the tritium supply alone would be supply alone would be supply alone would be supply alone would be slightly less than colloca- slightly less than colloca- slightly less than colloca- slightly less than colloca- tion with recycling for all tion with recycling for all tion with recycling for all tion with recycling for all technologies. technologies. technologies. technologies. Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation-No Action Under No Action for Under No Action for Under No Action for Under No Action for Under No Action for emissions of radiation the emissions of radiation the emissions of radiation the emissions of radiation the emissions of radiation the dose to the maximally dose to the maximally dose to the maximally dose to the maximally dose to the maximally exposed member of the exposed member of the exposed member of the exposed member of the exposed member of the public from 1 year of public from 1 year of public from 1 year of public from 1 year of public from 1 year of operation is 6.0x10-3 operation is 0.04 mrem. operation is 3.9 mrem from operation is 1.3x10-3 operation is 2.8 mrem from mrem. The risk of fatal The risk of fatal cancer to atmospheric release and 14 mrem. The risk of fatal atmospheric release and cancer to the maximally the maximally exposed mrem from liquid release. cancer to the maximally 0.077 from liquid release. exposed members of the members of the public The risk of fatal cancer to exposed members of the The risk of fatal cancer to public from 40 years of from 40 years of operation the maximally exposed public from 40 years of the maximally exposed operation is 1.2x10-7. is 8.1 x10-7. members of the public operation is 2.6x10-8. members of the public from 40 years of operation from 40 years of operation is 7.8x10-5 and 2.7x10-4, is 5.6x10-5 and 1.5x10-6, respectively. respectively. Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation-No Action The population dose of The population dose of The population dose of 57 The population dose of The population dose of 0.037 person-rem from 8.2x10-3 person-rem from person-rem from total site 5.7x10-4 person-rem from 250 person-rem from total total site operations in total site operations in operations in 2030 would total site operations in site operations in 2030 2030 would result in 2030 would result in result in 1.1 fatal cancer 2030 would result in would result in 4.9 fatal 7.4x10-4 fatal cancer over 1.6x10-4 fatal cancer over over 40 years of operation. 1.1x10-5 fatal cancer over cancers over 40 years of 40 years of operation. 40 years of operation. 40 years of operation. operation. Under No Action the Under No Action the Under No Action the Under No Action the Under No Action the average annual dose to a average annual dose to a average annual dose to a average annual dose to a average annual dose to a site worker is 30 mrem site worker is 5 mrem with site worker is 17 mrem site worker is 15 mrem site worker is 32 mrem with a risk of fatal cancer a risk of fatal cancer of with a risk of fatal cancer with a risk of fatal cancer with a risk of fatal cancer of 4.8x10-4 from 40 years 7.8x10-5 from 40 years of of 2.8x10-4 from 40 years of 2.4x10-4 from 40 years of 5.2x10-4 from 40 years of operation. The annual operation. The annual of operation. The annual of operation. The annual of operation. The annual dose of 220 person-rem to dose of 3 person-rem to dose of 320 person-rem to dose of 37 person-rem to dose of 480 person-rem to total site workforce would total site workforce would total site workforce would total site workforce would total site workforce would result in 3.5 fatal cancers result in 0.048 fatal cancer result in 5.1 fatal cancers result in 0.59 fatal cancers result in 7.7 fatal cancers over 40 years of operation. over 40 years of operation. over 40 years of operation. over 40 years of operation. over 40 years of operation. Under No Action for Under No Action for Under No Action for Under No Action for Under No Action for emission of hazardous emission of hazardous emission of hazardous emission of hazardous emission of hazardous chemicals the chemical HI chemicals the chemical HI chemicals the chemical HI chemicals the chemical HI chemicals the chemical HI is 1.7x10-4 with no cancer is 0 with no cancer risk to is 0.36 with no cancer risk is 3.7x10-3 with a cancer is 0.70 with a cancer risk of risk to the maximally the maximally exposed to the maximally exposed risk of 1.8x10-9 to the 3.3x10-5 to the maximally exposed member of the member of the public or member of the public. The maximally exposed exposed member of the public. The site worker HI site worker. site worker HI is 0.26 with member of the public. The public. The site worker HI is 0.021 with no cancer no cancer risk. site worker HI is 0.26 with is 1.8 and the cancer risk is risk. a cancer risk of 7.7x10-7. 5.9x10-3. The HI value for the public is within regula- tory limits, however, the worker HI exceeds OSHA's action level of 1.0. The cancer risk to both the public and site worker exceed the typical threshold of regulatory concern of 1.0x10-6. Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling The dose to the maximally The dose to the maximally The dose to the maximally The dose to the maximally The dose to the maximally exposed member of the exposed member of the exposed member of the exposed member of the exposed member of the public from total site oper- public from total site oper- public from total site oper- public from total site oper- public from total site oper- ations with a collocated ations with a collocated ations with a collocated ations with a collocated ations with a collocated tritium supply and tritium supply and tritium supply and tritium supply and tritium supply and recycling facility for 1 year recycling facility for 1 year recycling facility for 1 year recycling facility for 1 year upgraded recycling facility would range from 0.11 to would range from 0.13 to would range from 4.3 to would range from 1.4 to for 1 year would range 0.36 mrem from atmo- 0.40 mrem from atmo- 8.8 mrem from atmo- 4.9 mrem from atmo- from 2.5 to 3.9 mrem from spheric releases. The asso- spheric releases. The asso- spheric release. The asso- spheric releases. The asso- atmospheric release. The ciated risk of fatal cancer ciated risk of fatal cancer ciated risk of fatal cancer ciated risk of fatal cancer associated risk of fatal from 40 years of operation from 40 years of operation from 40 years of operation from 40 years of operation cancer from 40 years of would range from 2.3x10-6 would range from 2.6x10-6 would range from 8.6x10-5 would range from 2.9x10-5 operation would range to 7.3x10-6. The annual to 8.0x10-6. The annual to 1.8x10-4. The annual to 9.8x10-5. The annual from 4.9x10-5 to 7.8x10-5. dose and associated (risk dose and associated (risk dose and associated (risk dose and associated (risk The annual dose and asso- of fatal cancer from 40 of fatal cancer from 40 of fatal cancer from 40 of fatal cancer from 40 ciated (risk of fatal cancer years of operation) by years of operation) by years of operation) by years of operation) by from 40 years of opera- technology would be: technology would be: technology would be: technology would be: tion) by technology would - - - - be: HWR: 0.29 mrem HWR: 0.31 mrem HWR: 7.1 mrem HWR: 3.8 mrem HWR: 3.4 mrem (5.9x10-6) (6.2x10-6 ) (1.4x10-4) (7.6x10-5) (6.9x10-5) MHTGR: 0.19 mrem MHTGR: 0.21 mrem MHTGR: 5.7 mrem MHTGR: 2.4 mrem MHTGR: 3.0 mrem (3.8x10-6) (4.1x10-6 ) (1.1x10-4) (4.8x10-5) (5.9x10-5) Large and Small ALWR: Large and Small ALWR: Large ALWR: 8.8 mrem Large ALWR: 4.9 mrem Large ALWR: 3.9 mrem 0.36 mrem (7.3x10-6) 0.40 mrem (1.8x10-4) (9.8x10-5) (7.8x10-5) APT (He-3): 0.11 mrem (8.0x10-6 ) Small ALWR: 7.6 mrem Small ALWR: 4.8 mrem Small ALWR: 3.6 mrem (2.3x10-6) APT (He-3): 0.13 mrem (1.5x10-4) (9.6x10-5) (7.1x10-5) APT (SILC): 0.16 mrem (2.6x10-6) APT (He-3): 4.3 mrem APT (He-3): 1.4 mrem APT (He-3): 2.5 mrem (3.3x10-6) APT (SILC): 0.18 mrem (8.6x10-5) (2.9x10-5) (4.9x10-5) (3.6x10-6) APT (SILC): 5.0 mrem APT (SILC): 2.1 mrem APT (SILC): 2.8 mrem (1.0x10-4) (4.2x10-5 ) (5.6x10-5) Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling No liquid releases. No liquid releases. The dose to the maximally No liquid releases. The dose to the maximally exposed member of the exposed member of the public from total site public from total site operation with a collocated operation with a tritium tritium supply and supply and upgraded recycling facility for 1 year recycling facility for 1 year would be 14 mrem from would range from 0.077 to liquid release, the associ- 0.26 mrem from liquid ated risk of fatal cancer release, the associated risk from 40 years of operation of fatal cancer from 40 would be 2.7x10-4 for all years of operation would technologies, except for range from 1.5x10-6to the ALWRs (2.8x10-4). 5.3x10-6. - The annual dose and asso- ciated (risk of fatal cancer from 40 years of opera- tion) by technology would be: HWR: 0.16 mrem (3.3x10-6) MHTGR: 0.077 mrem (1.5x10-6) Large ALWR: 0.16 mrem (3.3x10-6) Small ALWR: 0.26 mrem (5.3x10-6) APT (for either target system): 0.077 mrem (1.5x10-6) Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling The 50-mile population The 50-mile population The 50-mile population The 50-mile population The 50-mile population annual dose from total site annual dose from total site annual dose from total site annual dose from total site annual dose from total site operations in 2030 would operations in 2030 would operations in 2030 would operations in 2030 would operations in 2030 would range from 23 to range from 0.08 to range from 68 to range from 9.2 to range from 220 to 73person-rem and could 0.25person-rem and could 90person-rem and could 37person-rem and could 340person-rem and could result in 0.45 to 1.5 fatal result in 1.6x10-3 to result in 1.4 to 1.8 fatal result in 0.18 to 0.73 fatal result in 4.4 to 6.8 fatal cancers from 40 years of 5.1x10-3 fatal cancers from cancers from 40 years of cancer from 40 years of cancers from 40 years of operation. The annual 40 years of operation. The operation. The annual operation. The annual operation. The annual dose and (fatal cancers annual dose and (fatal dose and (fatal cancers dose and (fatal cancer from dose and (fatal cancers from 40 years of opera- cancers from 40 years of from 40 years of opera- 40 years of operation) by from 40 years of opera- tion) by technology operation) by technology tion) by technology technology would be: tion) by technology wouldbe: would be: wouldbe: - wouldbe: HWR: 53 person-rem HWR: 0.20 person-rem HWR: 82 person-rem HWR: 28 person-rem HWR: 300 person-rem (1.1) (4.0x10-3) (1.6) (0.55) (6.1) MHTGR: 37 person-rem MHTGR: 0.13 person- MHTGR: 76 person-rem MHTGR: 16 person-rem MHTGR: 260 person-rem (0.73) rem (2.6x10-3) (1.5) (0.31) (5.2) Large ALWR: 73 person- Large ALWR: 0.24 person- Large ALWR: 90 person- Large ALWR: 37 person- Large ALWR: 340 person- rem (1.5) rem (4.9x10-3) rem (1.8) rem (0.73) rem (6.8) Small ALWR: 71 person- Small ALWR: 0.25 Small ALWR: 87 person- Small ALWR: 35 person- Small ALWR: 310 person- rem (1.4) person-rem (5.1x10-3) rem (1.7) rem (0.69) rem (6.2) APT (He-3): 23 person- APT (He-3): 0.08 person- APT (He-3): 68 person- APT (He-3): 9.2 person- APT (He-3): 220 person- rem (0.45) rem (1.6x10-3) rem (1.4 ) rem (0.18) rem (4.4) APT (SILC): 32 person- APT (SILC): 0.11 person- APT (SILC): 73 person- APT (SILC): 14 person- APT (SILC): 250 person- rem (0.64) rem (2.3x10-3) rem (1.5) rem (0.27) rem (4.9) Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling The average annual dose to The average annual dose to The average annual dose to The average annual dose to The average annual dose to a site worker that is associ- a site worker that is associ- a site worker that is associ- a site worker that is associ- a site worker that is associ- ated with total site opera- ated with total site opera- ated with total site opera- ated with total site opera- ated with total site opera- tions would range from 31 tions would range from 26 tions would range from 18 tions would range from 22 tions would range from 33 to 49 mrem with a to 140 mrem with a to 26 mrem with a to 68 mrem with a to 42 mrem with a resulting risk of fatal resulting risk of fatal resulting risk of fatal resulting risk of fatal resulting risk of fatal cancer from 40 years of cancer from 40 years of cancer from 40 years of cancer from 40 years of cancer from 40 years of operation ranging from operation ranging from operation ranging from operation ranging from operation ranging from 5.0x10-4 to 7.9x10-4. The 4.2x10-4 to 2.3x10-3. The 2.9x10-4 to 4.2x10-4. The 3.5x10-4 to 1.1x10-3. The 5.3x10-4 to 6.7x10-4. The dose and (fatal cancer risk) dose and (fatal cancer risk) dose and (fatal cancer risk) dose and (fatal cancer risk) dose and (fatal cancer risk) that are associated with that are associated with that are associated with that are associated with that are associated with total site operations, total site operations, total site operations, total site operations, total site operations, including the following including the following including the following including the following including the following technology, would be: technology, would be: technology, would be: technology would be: technology would be: HWR: 33 mrem HWR: 34 mrem HWR: 19 mrem HWR: 25 mrem HWR: 34 mrem (5.2x10-4) (5.4x10-4) (3.0x10-4) (4.0x10-4) (5.4x10-4) MHTGR: 31 mrem MHTGR: 26 mrem MHTGR: 18 mrem MHTGR: 22 mrem MHTGR: 33 mrem (5.0x10-4) (4.2x10-4) (2.9x10-4) (3.5x10-4) (5.3x10-4) Large ALWR: 49 mrem Large ALWR: 140 mrem Large ALWR: 26 mrem Large ALWR: 68 mrem Large ALWR: 42 mrem (7.9x10-4) (2.3x10-3) (4.2x10-4) (1.1x10-3) (6.7x10-4) Small ALWR: 41 mrem Small ALWR: 92 mrem Small ALWR: 22 mrem Small ALWR: 46 mrem Small ALWR: 38 mrem (6.6x10-4) (1.5x10-3) (3.6x10-4) (7.4x10-4) (6.1x10-4) APT (for either target APT (He-3): 34 mrem APT (He-3): 18 mrem APT (He-3): 25 mrem APT (for either target system): 33 mrem (5.5x10-4) (3.0x10-4) (3.9x10-4 ) system): 33 mrem (5.2x10-4) APT (SILC): 36 mrem APT (SILC): 19 mrem APT (SILC): 25 mrem (5.3x10-4) (5.7x10-4) (3.0x10-4) (4.0x10-4) Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling The annual dose to the The annual dose to the The annual dose to the The annual dose to the The annual dose to the total site workforce would total site workforce would total site workforce would total site workforce would total site workforce would range from 250 to range from 33 to range from 350 to range from 67 to range from 510 to 392person-rem and could 180person-rem and could 490person-rem and could 210person-rem and could 650person-rem and could result in 4 to 6.3 fatal result in 0.53 to 2.8 fatal result in 5.6 to 7.9 fatal result in 1.1 to 3.3 fatal result in 8.2 to 10 fatal cancers from 40 years of cancers from 40 years of cancers from 40 years of cancers from 40 years of cancers from 40 years of operation. The annual dose operation. The annual dose operation. The annual dose operation. The annual dose operation. The annual dose and (fatal cancers from and (fatal cancers from and (fatal cancers from and (fatal cancers from and (fatal cancers from 40years of operations) by 40years of operations) by 40years of operations) by 40years of operations) by 40years of operations) by technology would be: technology would be: technology would be: technology would be: technology would be: HWR: 261 person-rem HWR: 44 person-rem HWR: 360 person-rem HWR: 78 person-rem HWR: 520 person-rem (4.2) (0.70) (5.8) (1.2) (8.3) MHTGR: 250 person-rem MHTGR: 33 person-rem MHTGR: 350 person-rem MHTGR: 67 person-rem MHTGR: 510 person-rem (4.0) (0.53) (5.6) (1.1) (8.2) Large ALWR: 392 person- Large ALWR: 180 person- Large ALWR: 490 person- Large ALWR: 210 person- Large ALWR: 650 person- rem (6.3) rem (2.8) rem (7.9) rem (3.3) rem (10) Small ALWR: 322 person- Small ALWR: 100 person- Small ALWR: 420 person- Small ALWR: 140 person- Small ALWR: 580 person- rem (5.2) rem (1.7) rem (6.7) rem (2.2) rem (9.3) APT (He-3): 260 person- APT (He-3): 43 person- APT (He-3): 360 person- APT (He-3): 77 person- APT (He-3): 520 person- rem (4.2) rem (0.69) rem (5.8) rem (1.2) rem (8.3) APT (SILC): 262 person- APT (SILC): 45 person- APT (SILC): 362 person- APT (SILC): 79 person- APT (SILC): 522 person- rem (4.2) rem (0.72) rem (5.8) rem (1.3) rem (8.4) All doses to the public and All doses to the public and All doses to the public and All doses to the public and All doses to the public and site workers are within site workers are within site workers are within site workers are within site workers are within regulatory limits. regulatory limits. regulatory limits. regulatory limits. regulatory limits. Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling For chemicals the HI For chemicals the HI For chemicals the HI For chemicals the HI For chemicals the HI is 0.7 ranges from 1.8x10-4 to ranges from 1.8x10-7 to ranges from 0.36 to 0.38 ranges from 3.7x10-3 to with a cancer risk of 6.3x10-4 with no cancer 7.7x10-5 with no cancer with no cancer risk to the 7.5x10-3 with a cancer risk 3.3x10-5 to the maximally risk to the maximally risk to the maximally maximally exposed of 1.8x10-9 to the exposed member of the exposed member of the exposed member of the member of the public. The maximally exposed public for all technologies. public. The site worker HI public. The site worker HI site worker HI ranges from member of the public. The The site worker HI ranges ranges from 0.021 to 0.13 ranges from 3.4x10-5 to 0.35 to 0.26 with no cancer site worker HI is 0.26 with from 1.8 to 1.9 with a with no cancer risk. All 0.038 with no cancer risk. risk. All values are within a cancer risk of 7.7x10-7. cancer risk of 6.0x10-3 for values are within regula- All values are within regu- regulatory limits. The HIs All HI values are within all technologies . The HI tory limits. The HIs by latory limits. The HIs by by technology would be: regulatory limits. The HIs value for the public is technology would be: technology would be: by technology would be: within regulatory limits, however the HI value to the worker exceeds the action level of 1.0 based on OSHA's exposure limits. Cancer risks to the public and site workers both exceed the typical threshold of regulatory concern of 1.0x10-6. Public Public Public Public Public HWR: 2.1x10-4 HWR: 6.3x10-6 HWR: 0.36 HWR: 4.1x10-3 HWR: 0.7 MHTGR: 1.8x10-4 MHTGR: 2.2x10-7 MHTGR: 0.36 MHTGR: 3.7x10-3 MHTGR: 0.7 Large and Small ALWR: Large and Small ALWR: Large and Small ALWR: Large and Small ALWR: Large and Small ALWR: 6.3x10-4 7.7x10-5 0.38 7.5x10-3 0.71 APT (for either target APT (for either target APT (for either target APT (for either target APT (for either target system): 1.8x10-4 system): 1.8x10-7 system): 0.36 system): 3.8x10-3 system): 0.7 Worker Worker Worker Worker Worker HWR: 0.031 HWR: 3.2x10-3 HWR: 0.27 HWR: 0.26 HWR: 1.8 MHTGR: 0.021 MHTGR: 3.4x10-5 MHTGR: 0.32 MHTGR: 0.26 MHTGR: 1.8 Large and Small ALWR: Large and Small ALWR: Large and Small ALWR: Large and Small ALWR: Large and Small ALWR: 0.13 0.038 0.35 0.26 1.8 APT (for either target APT (for either target APT (for either target APT (for either target APT (for either target system): 0.021 system): 3.4x10-5 system): 0.26 system): 0.26 system): 1.8 Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation-Tritium Supply Alone The annual dose to the The annual dose to the The annual dose to the The annual dose to the No tritium supply alone. maximally exposed maximally exposed maximally exposed maximally exposed member of the public from member of the public from member of the public from member of the public from total site operations would total site operations would total site operations would total site operations would range from 0.0048 to range from 0.01 to range from 1.5 to 6 mrem range from 0.048 to 0.25mrem. The associ- 0.28mrem. The associ- from atmospheric release. 3.5mrem. The associated ated risk of fatal cancer ated risk of fatal cancer The associated risk of fatal risk of fatal cancer from 40 from 40 years of operation from 40 years of operation cancer from 40 years of years of operation would would range from 1.0x10-7 would range from 2.0x10-7 operation would range range from 1.0x10-6 to to 5.1x10-6. The dose and to 5.6x10-6. The dose and from 3.0x10-5 to 1.2x10-4. 7.0x10-5. The dose and associated (risk of fatal associated (risk of fatal The dose and associated associated (risk of fatal cancer) by technology cancer) by technology (risk of fatal cancer) by cancer) by technology would be: would be: technology would be: would be: HWR: 0.18 mrem HWR: 0.19 mrem HWR: 4.3 mrem HWR: 2.4 mrem - (3.7x10-6) (3.8x10-6) (8.4x10-5) (4.8x10-5) MHTGR: 0.08 mrem MHTGR: 0.09 mrem MHTGR: 2.9 mrem MHTGR: 1.0 mrem (1.6x10-6) (1.7x10-6) (5.4x10-5) (2.0x10-5) Large and Small ALWR: Large and Small ALWR: Large ALWR: 6 mrem Large ALWR: 3.5 mrem 0.25 mrem 0.28 mrem (1.2x10-4) (7.0x10-5 ) (5.1x10-6) (5.6x10-6) Small ALWR: 4.8 mrem Small ALWR: 3.4 mrem APT (He-3): 0.0048 mrem APT (He-3): 0.01 mrem (9.4x10-5) (6.8x10-5) (1.0x10-7) (2.0x10-7) APT (He-3): 1.5 mrem APT (He-3): 0.048 mrem APT (SILC): 0.05 mrem APT (SILC): 0.06 mrem (3.0x10-5) (1.0x10-6) (1.1x10-6) (1.2x10-6) APT (SILC): 2.2 mrem APT (SILC): 0.7 mrem (4.4x10-5) (1.4x10-5) Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation-Tritium Supply Alone No liquid release. No liquid release. The dose to a maximally No liquid release. No tritium supply alone. exposed member of the public from operation for 1year would be 14 mrem from liquid release for each technology, and the associated risk of fatal cancer from 40 years of operation would be 2.8x10-4 for all technolo- gies. The 50-mile population The 50-mile population The 50-mile population The 50-mile population No tritium supply alone. dose from total site opera- dose from total site opera- dose from total site opera- dose from total site opera- tions in 2030 would range tions in 2030 would range tions in 2030 would range tions in 2030 would range from 1.0 to 51 person-rem from 0.01 to 0.18 person- from 57 to 79 person-rem from 0.2 to 28 person-rem and could result in 0.01 to rem and could result in and could result in 1.2 to and could result in 1.1 fatal cancers over 2.0x10-4 to 3.7x10-3 fatal 1.6 fatal cancers over 3.9x10-3 to 0.55 fatal 40years of operation. The cancers over 40 years of 40years of operation. The cancers over 40 years of dose and (fatal cancers) by operation. The dose and dose and (fatal cancers) by operation. The dose and technology would be: (fatal cancers) by technol- technology would be: (fatal cancers) by technol- ogy would be: ogy would be: HWR: 31 person-rem HWR: 0.13 person-rem HWR: 71 person-rem HWR: 19 person-rem - (0.66) (2.6x10-3) (1.4) (0.37) MHTGR: 15 person-rem MHTGR: 0.06 person- MHTGR: 65 person-rem MHTGR: 7 person-rem (0.29) rem (1.2x10-3) (1.3) (0.13) Large ALWR: 51 person- Large ALWR: 0.17 Large ALWR: 79 person- Large ALWR: 28 person- rem (1.1) person-rem (3.5x10-3) rem (1.6) rem (0.55) Small ALWR: 49 person- Small ALWR: 0.18 Small ALWR: 76 person- Small ALWR: 26 person- rem (0.96) person-rem (3.7x10-3) rem (1.5) rem (0.51) APT (He-3): 1.0 person- APT (He-3): 0.01 person- APT (He-3): 57 person- APT (He-3): 0.2 person- rem (0.01) rem (2.0x10-4) rem (1.2) rem (3.9x10-3) APT (SILC): 10 person- APT (SILC): 0.04 person- APT (SILC): 62 person- APT (SILC): 5 person-rem rem (0.2) rem (9.0x10-4) rem (1.3) (0.09) Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation-Tritium Supply Alone The average annual dose to The average annual dose to The average annual dose to The average annual dose to No tritium supply alone. a site worker that is associ- a site worker that is associ- a site worker that is associ- a site worker that is associ- ated with total site opera- ated with total site opera- ated with total site opera- ated with total site opera- tions would range from tions would range from tions would range from tions would range from 33to 52 mrem with a 37to 220 mrem with a 19to 26 mrem with a 24to 78 mrem with a resulting risk of fatal resulting risk of fatal resulting risk of fatal resulting risk of fatal cancer from 40 years of cancer from 40 years of cancer from 40 years of cancer from 40 years of operation ranging from operation ranging from operation ranging from operation ranging from 5.3x10-4 to 8.3x10-4. The 6.0x10-4 to 3.5x10-3. The 3.0x10-4 to 4.3x10-4. The 2.9x10-4 to 1.3x10-3. The dose and (fatal cancer risk) dose and (fatal cancer risk) dose and (fatal cancer risk) dose and (fatal cancer risk) that are associated with that are associated with that are associated with that are associated with total site operations, total site operations, total site operations, total site operations, including the following including the following including the following including the following technology, would be: technology, would be: technology, would be: technology, would be: HWR: 34 mrem HWR: 47 mrem HWR: 19 mrem HWR: 28 mrem (5.4x10-4) (7.5x10-4) (3.0x10-4) (4.5x10-4) MHTGR: 33 mrem MHTGR: 37 mrem MHTGR: 19 mrem MHTGR: 24 mrem (5.3x10-4) (6.0x10-4) (3.0x10-4) (3.9x10-4) Large ALWR: 52 mrem Large ALWR: 220 mrem Large ALWR: 26 mrem Large ALWR: 78 mrem (8.3x10-4) (3.5x10-3) (4.3x10-4) (1.3x10-3) Small ALWR: 43 mrem Small ALWR: 130 mrem Small ALWR: 23 mrem Small ALWR: 53 mrem (6.9x10-4) (2.2x10-3) (3.7x10-4) (8.6x10-4 ) APT (He-3): 34 mrem APT (He-3): 48 mrem APT (for either target APT (He-3): 28 mrem (5.4x10-4) (7.7x10-4) system): 19 mrem (4.4x10-4 ) APT (SILC): 34 mrem APT (SILC): 51 mrem (3.0x10-4) APT (SILC): 29 mrem (5.5x10-4) (8.2x10-4 ) (4.6x10-4 ) Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation-Tritium Supply Alone The annual dose to the The annual dose to the The annual dose to the The annual dose to the No tritium supply alone. total site workforce would total site workforce would total site workforce would total site workforce would range from 250 to range from 42 to range from 350 to range from 65 to 390person-rem and could 180person-rem and could 490person-rem and could 210person-rem and could result in 4 to 6.3 fatal result in 0.67 to 2.8 fatal result in 5.6 to 7.9 fatal result in 1.1 to 3.3 fatal cancers over 40 years of cancers over 40 years of cancers over 40 years of cancers over 40 years of operation. The dose and operation. The dose and operation. The dose and operation. The dose and (fatal cancers) by each (fatal cancers) by each (fatal cancers) by each (fatal cancers) by each technology would be: technology would be: technology would be: technology would be: HWR: 260 person-rem HWR: 42 person-rem HWR: 360 person-rem HWR: 76 person-rem (4.2) (0.67) (5.8) (1.2) MHTGR: 250 person-rem MHTGR: 31 person-rem MHTGR: 350 person-rem MHTGR: 65 person-rem (4.0) (0.50) (5.6) (1.1) Large ALWR: 390 person- Large ALWR: 180 person- Large ALWR: 490 person- Large ALWR: 210 person- rem (6.3) rem (2.8) rem (7.9) rem (3.3) Small ALWR: 320 person- Small ALWR: 98 person- Small ALWR: 420 person- Small ALWR: 140 person- rem (5.2) rem (1.7) rem (6.7) rem (2.2) APT (He-3): 258 person- APT (He-3): 41 person- APT (for either target APT (He-3): 75 person- rem (4.1) rem (0.66) system): 360 person-rem rem (1.2) APT (SILC): 261 person- APT (SILC): 44 person- (5.8) APT (SILC): 78 person- rem (4.2) rem (0.70) rem (1.2) All radiological doses to All radiological doses to All radiological doses to All radiological doses to No tritium supply alone. the public and site workers the public and site workers the public and site workers the public and site workers are within regulatory are within regulatory are within regulatory are within regulatory limits. limits. limits. limits. Radiological and Hazardous Chemical Impacts During Normal Operation-Tritium Supply Alone For collocation relative For collocation relative For collocation relative For collocation relative No tritium supply alone. percent reduction of the HI percent reduction of the HI percent reduction of the HI percent reduction of the HI to the maximally exposed to the maximally exposed to the maximally exposed to the maximally exposed member of the public and member of the public and member of the public and member of the public and the site worker HI with no the site worker HI with no the site worker HI with no the site worker HI with no cancer risk would be cancer risk would be cancer risk would be change in either of the reduced by the below reduced by the below reduced by 0.01 percent cancer risk values would listed percentages for each listed percentages for each for all technologies (all be reduced by the below technology (all values are technology (all values are values are within regula- listed percentages for each within regulatory limits): within regulatory limits): tory limits): technology. - - - The HI values are within - - - - regulatory health limits, - - - the cancer risks to the - - - public and site worker - - - exceed the typical - - - threshold of regulatory - - - concern of 1.0x10-6: Public Public Public Public HWR: 0.26 HWR: 1.4 HWR: 0.007 HWR: 0.78 MHTGR: 0.3 MHTGR: 41.4 MHTGR: 0.007 MHTGR: 0.86 ALWR: 0.09 ALWR: 0.12 ALWR: 0.007 ALWR: 0.42 APT: 0.3 APT: 50.6 APT: 0.007 APT: 0.84 - - - - Worker Worker Worker Worker HWR: 0.16 HWR: 0.53 HWR: 0.015 HWR: 0.006 MHTGR: 0.23 MHTGR: 50 MHTGR: 0.013 MHTGR: 0.006 ALWR: 0.04 ALWR: 0.04 ALWR: 0.011 ALWR: 0.006 APT: 0.23 APT: 50 APT: 0.015 APT: 0.006 Radiological Impacts from Accidents-Collocated Tritium Supply Technology The estimated increase in The estimated increase in The estimated increase in The estimated increase in The estimated increase in likelihood of cancer likelihood of cancer likelihood of cancer likelihood of cancer likelihood of cancer fatality and the cancer risk fatality and the cancer risk fatality and the cancer risk fatality and the cancer risk fatality and the cancer risk to a maximally exposed to a maximally exposed to a maximally exposed to a maximally exposed to a maximally exposed individual at the site individual at the site individual at the site individual at the site individual at the site boundary for a low-to- boundary for a low-to- boundary for a low-to- boundary for a low-to- boundary for a low-to- moderate consequence/ moderate consequence/ moderate consequence/ moderate consequence/ moderate consequence/ high probability accident high probability accident high probability accident high probability accident high probability accident associated with operation associated with operation associated with operation associated with operation associated with operation of a collocated tritium of a collocated tritium of a collocated tritium of a collocated tritium of a collocated tritium supply and recycling supply and recycling supply and recycling supply and recycling supply and recycling facility would be: facility would be: facility would be: facility would be: facility would be: - - - - - Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) HWR: 8.1x10-9 HWR: 4.2x10-9 HWR: 6.8x10-8 HWR: 6.2x10-9 HWR: 2.3x10-8 MHTGR: 1.3x10-10 MHTGR: 5.5x10-11 MHTGR: 1.1x10-9 MHTGR: 1.0x10-10 MHTGR: 3.0x10-10 Large ALWR: 5.0x10-11 Large ALWR: 2.2x10-11 Large ALWR: 4.3x10-10 Large ALWR: 3.9x10-11 Large ALWR: 1.3x10-10 Small ALWR: 6.8x10-11 Small ALWR: 3.0x10-11 Small ALWR: 5.8x10-10 Small ALWR: 5.2x10-11 Small ALWR: 2.0x10-10 APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible - - - - - Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality HWR: 8.1x10-6 HWR: 4.2x10-6 HWR: 6.8x10-5 HWR: 6.2x10-6 HWR: 2.3x10-5 MHTGR: 5.1x10-9 MHTGR: 2.2x10-9 MHTGR: 4.4x10-8 MHTGR: 4.0x10-9 MHTGR: 1.2x10-8 Large ALWR: 5.0x10-6 Large ALWR: 2.2x10-6 Large ALWR: 4.3x10-5 Large ALWR: 3.9x10-6 Large ALWR: 1.3x10-5 Small ALWR: 6.8x10-6 Small ALWR: 3.0x10-6 Small ALWR: 5.8x10-5 Small ALWR: 5.2x10-6 Small ALWR: 2.0x10-5 APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible Radiological Impacts from Accidents-Tritium Supply Technology The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk (fatalities per year) and, if (fatalities per year) and, if (fatalities per year) and, if (fatalities per year) and, if (fatalities per year) and, if the accident occured, the the accident occured, the the accident occured, the the accident occured, the the accident occured, the total cancer fatalities for total cancer fatalities for total cancer fatalities for total cancer fatalities for total cancer fatalities for the populations residing the populations residing the populations residing the populations residing the populations residing within 50 miles for a low- within 50 miles for a low- within 50 miles for a low- within 50 miles for a low within 50 miles for a low- to-moderate consequence/ to-moderate consequence/ to-moderate consequence/ to moderate consequence/ to-moderate consequence/ high probability accident high probability accident high probability accident high probability accident high probability accident of a tritium supply technol- of a tritium supply technol- of a tritium supply technol- of a tritium supply technol- of a tritium supply technol- ogy would be: ogy would be: ogy would be: ogy would be: ogy would be: - - - - - Cancer Risk Cancer Risk Cancer Risk Cancer Risk Cancer Risk (per year) HWR: 7.4x10-5 HWR: 1.2x10-6 HWR: 7.5x10-4 HWR: 2.6x10-5 HWR: 7.3x10-4 MHGTR: 5.0x10-7 MHTGR: 1.7x10-8 MHTGR: 1.1x10-5 MHTGR: 3.0x10-7 MHTGR: 6.3x10-6 Large ALWR: 3.8x10-7 Large ALWR: 7.3x10-9 Large ALWR: 4.6x10-6 Large ALWR: 1.5x10-7 Large ALWR: 3.8x10-6 Small ALWR: 6.2x10-7 Small ALWR: 1.0x10-8 Small ALWR: 6.4x10-6 Small ALWR: 2.1x10-7 Small ALWR: 6.0x10-6 APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible - - - - - Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality HWR: 0.074 HWR: 1.2x10-3 HWR: 0.75 HWR: 0.026 HWR: 0.73 MHGTR: 2.0x10-5 MHTGR: 6.8x10-7 MHTGR: 4.3x10-4 MHTGR: 1.2x10-5 MHTGR: 2.5x10-4 Large ALWR: 0.038 Large ALWR: 7.3x10-4 Large ALWR: 0.46 Large ALWR: 0.015 Large ALWR: 0.037 Small ALWR: 0.062 Small ALWR: 1.0x10-3 Small ALWR: 0.64 Small ALWR: 0.021 Small ALWR: 0.60 APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible Radiological Impacts from Accidents-Tritium Supply Technology The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk to a worker located to a worker located to a worker located to a worker located to a worker located 1,000meters from the 1,000meters from the 1,000meters from the 1,000meters from the 1,000meters from the release and, if the accident release and, if the accident release and, if the accident release and, if the accident release and, if the accident occured, the increase in occured, the increase in occured, the increase in occured, the increase in occured, the increase in likelihood of cancer likelihood of cancer likelihood of cancer likelihood of cancer likelihood of cancer fatality for a low-to- fatality for a low-to- fatality for a low-to- fatality for a low-to- fatality for a low-to- moderate consequence/ moderate consequence/ moderate consequence/ moderate consequence/ moderate consequence/ high probability accident high probability accident high probability accident high probability accident high probability accident of a tritium supply technol- of a tritium supply technol- of a tritium supply technol- of a tritium supply technol- of a tritium supply technol- ogy would be: ogy would be: ogy would be: ogy would be: ogy would be: - - - - - Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) HWR: 1.1x10-7 HWR: 2.8x10-8 HWR: 1.6x10-7 HWR: 1.2x10-8 HWR: 2.9x10-7 MHTGR: 3.3x10-9 MHTGR: 8.3x10-10 MHTGR: 4.8x10-9 MHTGR: 3.8x10-10 MHTGR: 8.5x10-9 Large ALWR: 1.0x10-9 Large ALWR: 3.1x10-10 Large ALWR: 1.6x10-9 Large ALWR: 1.2x10-10 Large ALWR: 2.8x10-9 Small ALWR: 1.3x10-9 Small ALWR: 3.9x10-10 Small ALWR: 2.1x10-9 Small ALWR: 1.6x10-10 Small ALWR: 3.6x10-9 APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible - - - - - Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality HWR: 1.1x10-4 HWR: 2.8x10-5 HWR: 1.6x10-4 HWR: 1.2x10-5 HWR: 2.9x10-4 MHTGR: 1.3x10-7 MHTGR: 3.3x10-8 MHTGR: 1.9x10-7 MHTGR: 1.5x10-8 MHTGR: 3.4x10-7 Large ALWR: 1.0x10-4 Large ALWR: 3.1x10-5 Large ALWR: 1.6x10-4 Large ALWR: 1.2x10-5 Large ALWR: 2.8x10-4 Small ALWR: 1.3x10-4 Small ALWR: 3.9x10-5 Small ALWR: 2.1x10-4 Small ALWR: 1.6x10-5 Small ALWR: 3.6x10-4 APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible APT: negligible Radiological Impacts from Accidents-Tritium Supply Technology The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk and, if the accident and, if the accident and, if the accident and, if the accident and, if the accident ocurred, the increase in ocurred, the increase in ocurred, the increase in ocurred, the increase in ocurred, the increase in likelihood of cancer likelihood of cancer likelihood of cancer likelihood of cancer likelihood of cancer fatality to a maximally fatality to a maximally fatality to a maximally fatality to a maximally fatality to a maximally exposed individual at the exposed individual at the exposed individual at the exposed individual at the exposed individual at the site boundary for a high site boundary for a high site boundary for a high site boundary for a high site boundary for a high consequence/low proba- consequence/low proba- consequence/low proba- consequence/low proba- consequence/low proba- bility accident of a tritium bility accident of a tritium bility accident of a tritium bility accident of a tritium bility accident of a tritium supply technology would supply technology would supply technology would supply technology would supply technology would be: be: be: be: be: - - - - - Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) HWR: 6.5x10-9 HWR: 1.8x10-8 HWR: 1.4x10-7 HWR: 9.5x10-8 HWR: 6.0x10-9 MHTGR: 9.4x10-10 MHTGR: 2.7x10-9 MHTGR: 2.4x10-8 MHTGR: 1.6x10-8 MHTGR: 1.0x10-9 Large ALWR: 3.5x10-10 Large ALWR: 8.3x10-10 Large ALWR: 3.1x10-9 Large ALWR: 2.3x10-9 Large ALWR: 2.0x10-10 Small ALWR: 3.6x10-10 Small ALWR: 9.8x10-10 Small ALWR: 6.6x10-9 Small ALWR: 4.6x10-9 Small ALWR: 2.9x10-10 APT (He-3): 4.4x10-15 APT (He-3): 1.2x10-14 APT (He-3): 9.5x10-14 APT (He-3): 6.4x10-14 APT (He-3): 4.1x10-15 APT (SILC): 9.2x10-14 APT (SILC): 2.3x10-13 APT (SILC): 1.6x10-12 APT (SILC): 1.0x10-12 APT (SILC): 7.3x10-14 - - - - - Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality HWR: 7.1x 10-4 HWR: 2.0x10-3 HWR: 0.015 HWR: 0.010 HWR: 6.6x10-4 MHTGR: 5.9x10-5 MHTGR: 1.7x10-4 MHTGR: 1.5x10-3 MHTGR: 1.0x10-3 MHTGR: 6.3x10-5 Large ALWR: 2.3x10-3 Large ALWR: 5.5x10-3 Large ALWR: 0.02 Large ALWR: 0.015 Large ALWR: 1.3x10-3 Small ALWR: 2.3x10-3 Small ALWR: 6.3x10-3 Small ALWR: 0.042 Small ALWR: 0.029 Small ALWR: 1.9x10-3 APT (He-3): 6.2x10-9 APT (He-3): 1.7x10-8 APT (He-3): 1.3x10-7 APT (He-3): 9.0x10-8 APT (He-3): 5.7x10-9 APT (SILC): 1.3x10-7 APT (SILC): 3.3x10-7 APT (SILC): 2.2x10-6 APT (SILC): 1.4x10-6 APT (SILC): 1.0x10-7 Radiological Impacts from Accidents-Tritium Supply Technology The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk (fatalities per year) and, if (fatalities per year) and, if (fatalities per year) and, if (fatalities per year) and, if (fatalities per year) and, if the accident ocurred, the the accident ocurred, the the accident ocurred, the the accident ocurred, the the accident ocurred, the total cancer fatalities for total cancer fatalities for total cancer fatalities for total cancer fatalities for total cancer fatalities for the population residing the population residing the population residing the population residing the population residing within 50 miles for a high within 50 miles for a high within 50 miles for a high within 50 miles for a high within 50 miles for a high consequence/ low proba- consequence/ low proba- consequence/ low proba- consequence/ low proba- consequence/ low proba- bility accident of a tritium bility accident of a tritium bility accident of a tritium bility accident of a tritium bility accident of a tritium supply technology would supply technology would supply technology would supply technology would supply technology would be: be: be: be: be: - - - - - Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) HWR: 1.4x10-5 HWR: 1.4x10-6 HWR: 1.2x10-4 HWR: 1.5x10-5 HWR: 5.1x10-5 MHTGR: 2.9x10-6 MHTGR: 2.8x10-7 MHTGR: 2.3x10-5 MHTGR: 3.0x10-6 MHTGR: 1.0x10-5 Large ALWR: 5.5x10-8 Large ALWR: 5.3x10-9 Large ALWR: 9.4x10-7 Large ALWR: 1.1x10-7 Large ALWR: 2.6x10-7 Small ALWR: 6.4x10-7 Small ALWR: 6.1x10-8 Small ALWR: 5.1x10-6 Small ALWR: 6.7x10-7 Small ALWR: 2.3x10-6 APT (He-3): 7.4x10-12 APT (He-3): 7.0x10-13 APT (He-3): 6.8x10-11 APT (He-3): 8.9x10-12 APT (He-3): 2.8x10-11 APT (SILC): 6.7x10-11 APT (SILC): 6.4x10-12 APT (SILC): 7.4x10-10 APT (SILC): 9.6x10-11 APT (SILC): 2.7x10-10 - - - - - Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality HWR: 1.6 HWR: 0.15 HWR: 13 HWR: 1.7 HWR: 5.5 MHTGR: 0.18 MHTGR: 0.017 MHTGR: 1.4 MHTGR: 0.19 MHTGR: 0.63 Large ALWR: 0.36 Large ALWR: 0.035 Large ALWR: 6.2 Large ALWR: 0.72 Large ALWR: 1.7 Small ALWR: 4.1 Small ALWR: 0.39 Small ALWR: 33 Small ALWR: 4.3 Small ALWR: 14 APT (He-3): 1.0x10-5 APT (He-3): 9.9x10-7 APT (He-3): 9.6x10-5 APT (He-3): 1.3x10-5 APT (He-3): 3.9x10-5 APT (SILC): 9.4x10-5 APT (SILC): 9.0x10-6 APT (SILC): 1.0x10-3 APT (SILC): 1.3x10-4 APT (SILC): 3.8x10-4 Radiological Impacts from Accidents-Tritium Supply Technology The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk The estimated cancer risk to a worker located to a worker located to a worker located to a worker located to a worker located 1,000meters from the 1,000meters from the 1,000meters from the 1,000meters from the 1,000meters from the release and, if the accident release and, if the accident release and, if the accident release and, if the accident release and, if the accident ocurred, the increase in ocurred, the increase in ocurred, the increase in ocurred, the increase in ocurred, the increase in likelihood of cancer likelihood of cancer likelihood of cancer likelihood of cancer likelihood of cancer fatality for a high conse- fatality for a high conse- fatality for a high conse- fatality for a high conse- fatality for a high conse- quence/low probability quence/low probability quence/low probability quence/low probability quence/low probability accident of a tritium accident of a tritium accident of a tritium accident of a tritium accident of a tritium supply technology would supply technology would supply technology would supply technology would supply technology would be: be: be: be: be: - - - - - Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) Cancer Risk (per year) HWR: 3.2x10-7 HWR: 2.8x10-7 HWR: 3.2x10-7 HWR: 2.2x10-7 HWR: 2.1x10-7 MHTGR: 1.1x10-7 MHTGR: 8.1x10-8 MHTGR: 1.1x10-7 MHTGR: 5.0x10-8 MHTGR: 5.1x10-8 Large ALWR: 5.0x10-9 Large ALWR: 4.5x10-9 Large ALWR: 4.9x10-9 Large ALWR: 3.5x10-9 Large ALWR: 3.4x10-9 Small ALWR: 1.5x10-8 Small ALWR: 1.4x10-8 Small ALWR: 1.6x10-8 Small ALWR: 1.1x10-8 Small ALWR: 1.1x10-8 APT (He-3): 4.4x10-13 APT (He-3): 3.2x10-13 APT (He-3): 4.3x10-13 APT (He-3): 1.9x10-13 APT (He-3): 1.9x10-13 APT (SILC): 6.7x10-12 APT (SILC): 4.8x10-12 APT (SILC): 6.2x10-12 APT (SILC): 2.7x10-12 APT (SILC): 2.7x10-12 - - - - - Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality Cancer Fatality HWR: 0.034 HWR: 0.031 HWR: 0.035 HWR: 0.024 HWR: 0.023 MHTGR: 6.7x10-3 MHTGR: 5.0x10-3 MHTGR: 7.1x10-3 MHTGR: 3.1x10-3 MHTGR: 3.2x10-3 Large ALWR: 0.033 Large ALWR: 0.03 Large ALWR: 0.032 Large ALWR: 0.023 Large ALWR: 0.023 Small ALWR: 0.094 Small ALWR: 0.087 Small ALWR: 0.10 Small ALWR: 0.070 Small ALWR: 0.067 APT (He-3): 6.1x10-7 APT (He-3): 4.5x10-7 APT (He-3): 6.0x10-7 APT (He-3): 2.6x10-7 APT (He-3): 2.7x10-7 APT (SILC): 9.4x10-6 APT (SILC): 6.7x10-6 APT (SILC): 8.7x10-6 APT (SILC): 3.8x10-6 APT (SILC): 3.8x10-6 The impacts of tritium The impacts of tritium The impacts of tritium The impacts of tritium The impacts of tritium extraction and recycling extraction and recycling extraction and recycling extraction and recycling extraction and recycling are presented in are presented in are presented in are presented in are presented in appendixI. appendixI. appendixI. appendixI. appendixI. Waste Management-No Action Under No Action, INEL Under No Action, NTS Under No Action, ORR Under No Action, Pantex Under No Action, SRS would continue to manage would continue to manage would continue to manage would continue to manage would continue to manage spent nuclear fuel and the the following waste types: spent nuclear fuel and the the following waste types: spent nuclear fuel and the following waste types: TRU, low-level, mixed following waste types: low-level, mixed low- following waste types: high-level, TRU, low- TRU and low-level, haz- TRU, low-level, mixed level, hazardous, and non- high-level, TRU, low- level, mixed TRU and low- ardous, and nonhazardous. TRU and low-level, haz- hazardous. level, mixed TRU and low- level, hazardous, and non- ardous, and nonhazardous. level, hazardous, and non- hazardous. hazardous. Waste Management-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and upgraded ities, spent nuclear fuel ities, spent nuclear fuel ities, spent nuclear fuel ities, spent nuclear fuel recycling facilities, spent would be generated by all would be generated by all would be generated by all would be generated by all nuclear fuel would be technologies, except APT. technologies, except APT. technologies, except APT. technologies, except APT. generated by all technolo- New spent fuel storage New spent fuel storage New spent fuel storage New spent fuel storage gies, except APT. New facilities would be facilities would be facilities would be facilities would be spent fuel storage facilities required. For tritium required. For tritium required. For tritium required. For tritium would be required. recycling phaseout at SRS, recycling phaseout at SRS, recycling phaseout at SRS, recycling phaseout at SRS, no change for spent no change for spent no change for spent no change for spent nuclear fuel. nuclear fuel. nuclear fuel. nuclear fuel. Waste Management-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and upgraded ities, liquid LLW would be ities, liquid LLW would be ities, liquid LLW genera- ities, liquid LLW genera- recycling facilities, liquid generated by all technolo- generated for all technolo- tion would increase for all tion would increase for all LLW would be generated gies except APT in the gies except APT in the technologies except APT. technologies except APT. for all technologies except following quantities: following quantities: The increase over No The increase over No APT in the following - - Action (587,000 GPY) Action (400 GPY) would quantities: - - would be: be: - HWR: 2,100,000 GPY HWR: 2,100,000 GPY HWR: 2,100,000 GPY HWR: 2,100,000 GPY HWR: 2,100,000 GPY MHTGR: 525,000 GPY MHTGR: 525,000 GPY MHTGR: 525,000 GPY MHTGR: 525,000 GPY MHTGR: 525,000 GPY Large ALWR: Large ALWR: Large ALWR: Large ALWR: Large ALWR: 5,000,000 GPY 5,000,000 GPY 5,000,000 GPY 5,000,000 GPY 5,000,000 GPY Small ALWR: Small ALWR: Small ALWR: Small ALWR: Small ALWR: 790,000 GPY 790,000 GPY 790,000 GPY 790,000 GPY 790,000 GPY - - - - - Existing/planned New treatment facilities New treatment facilities New treatment facilities New treatment facilities treatment facilities may be would be required. For would be required. For would be required. For would be required. adequate for all technolo- tritium recycling phaseout tritium recycling phaseout tritium recycling phaseout gies, except the Large at SRS, no change for at SRS, no change for at SRS, no change for ALWR, which would liquid LLW. liquid LLW. liquid LLW. require a new treatment facility. For tritium recycling phaseout at SRS, no change for liquid LLW. Waste Management-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- ities, solid LLW genera- ities, solid LLW genera- ities, solid LLW genera- ities, solid LLW genera- ities, solid LLW genera- tion would increase and tion would increase and tion would increase and tion would increase and tion would increase for all require additional onsite require additional onsite require additional onsite require additional onsite technologies and require LLW disposal area. The LLW disposal area. The LLW disposal area. The LLW disposal area at NTS. additional onsite LLW increase over No Action increase over No Action increase over No Action The increase over No disposal area. The (5,100 yd3 per year) and (42,400 yd3 per year) and (9,300 yd3 per year) and Action (25 yd3 per year) increase over No Action the additional LLW the additional LLW the additional LLW and the additional LLW (5,100 yd3 per year) and disposal area would be: disposal area would be: disposal area would be: shipments to NTS would the additional LLW be: disposal area would be: HWR: 5,550 yd3 per year - HWR: 5,550 yd3 per year - HWR: 5,550 yd3 per year - HWR: 5,550 yd3 per year - HWR: 5,200 yd3 per year - 0.6 acres per year 0.6 acres per year 1.2 acres per year 92 shipments per year 0.4 acres per year MHTGR: 1,650 yd3 per MHTGR: 1,650 yd3 per MHTGR: 1,650 yd3 per MHTGR: 1,650 yd3 per MHTGR: 1,300 yd3 per year - 0.2 acres per year year - 0.2 acres per year year - 0.35 acre per year year - 27 shipments per year - 0.1 acres per year - - - year - Large ALWR: 1,060 yd3 Large ALWR: 1,060 yd3 Large ALWR: 1,060 yd3 Large ALWR: 1,060 yd3 Large ALWR: 710 yd3 per per year - 0.2 acres per per year - 0.2 acres per per year - 0.4 acres per per year - 32 shipments per year - 0.06 acres per year year year year year - Small ALWR: 1,010 yd3 Small ALWR: 1,010 yd3 Small ALWR: 1,010 yd3 Small ALWR: 1,010 yd3 Small ALWR: 660 yd3 per per year - 0.1 acres per per year - 0.1 acres per per year - 0.2 acres per per year - 18 shipments per year - 0.05 acres per year year year year year - APT: 894 yd3 per year - APT: 894 yd3 per year - APT: 894 yd3 per year - APT: 894 yd3 per year - APT: 544 yd3 per year - 0.1 acres per year 0.1 acres per year 0.2 acres per year 16 shipments per year 0.05 acre per year - - - - For tritium recycling For tritium recycling For tritium recycling Additional LLW disposal phaseout at SRS, 350 yd3 phaseout at SRS, 350 yd3 phaseout at SRS, 350 yd3 area at NTS would be the per year decrease in solid per year decrease in solid per year decrease in solid same as in NTS alterna- LLW at SRS. LLW LLW at SRS. LLW LLW at SRS. LLW tives. For tritium recycling disposal facility life disposal facility life disposal facility life phaseout at SRS, 350 yd3 extended. extended. extended. per year decrease in solid LLW at SRS. LLW disposal facility life extended. Waste Management-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and upgraded ities, small quantity ities, small quantity ities, small quantity ities, small quantity recycling facilities, no (6GPY) of liquid mixed (6GPY) of liquid mixed (6GPY) in liquid mixed (6GPY) in liquid mixed increase in liquid mixed LLW from recycling LLW from recycling LLW generation over No LLW generation over No LLW generation from facility would be gener- facility would be gener- Action (470,000 GPY) Action (403 GPY) would upgraded recycling ated. Existing/planned ated. Organic mixed waste would be generated from be generated from facility. treatment facilities would treatment capability would recycling facility. Exist- recycling facility. Exist- be adequate. For tritium be required. For tritium ing/planned treatment ing/planned treatment recycling phaseout at SRS, recycling phaseout at SRS, facilities would be facilities would be 6 GPY of liquid mixed 6 GPY of liquid mixed adequate. For tritium adequate. For tritium LLW no longer generated LLW no longer generated recycling phaseout at SRS, recycling phaseout at SRS, at SRS. at SRS. 6 GPY of liquid mixed 6 GPY of liquid mixed LLW no longer generated LLW no longer generated at SRS. at SRS. For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- ities, solid mixed LLW ities, solid mixed LLW ities, solid mixed LLW ities, solid mixed LLW ities, solid mixed LLW generation would increase. generation would increase. generation would increase. generation would increase. generation would increase. The increase over No The increase over No The increase over No The increase over No The increase over No Action (655 yd3 per year) Action (5,460 yd3 per Action (11,100 yd3 per Action (5 yd3 per year) Action (151 yd3 per year) would be: year) would be: year) would be: would be: would be: HWR: 122 yd3 per year HWR: 122 yd3 per year HWR: 122 yd3 per year HWR: 122 yd3 per year HWR: 120 yd3 per year MHTGR: 3 yd3 per year MHTGR: 3 yd3 per year MHTGR: 3 yd3 per year MHTGR: 3 yd3 per year MHTGR: 1 yd3 per year Large ALWR: 8 yd3 per Large ALWR: 8 yd3 per Large ALWR: 8 yd3 per Large ALWR: 8 yd3 per Large ALWR: 6 yd3 per year year year year year Small ALWR: 8 yd3 per Small ALWR: 8 yd3 per Small ALWR: 8 yd3 per Small ALWR: 8 yd3 per Small ALWR: 6 yd3 per year year year year year APT: 9 yd3 per year APT: 9 yd3 per year APT: 9 yd3 per year APT: 9 yd3 per year APT: 7 yd3 per year - - Organic mixed waste Existing/planned treatment capability would treatment facilities would be required. For tritium be adequate. For tritium recycling phaseout at SRS, recycling phaseout at SRS, 2 yd3 per year decrease in 2 yd3 per year decrease in solid mixed LLW at SRS. solid mixed LLW at SRS. Waste Management-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling HWR may require new or - - HWR would require new HWR may require new or expanded treatment and or expanded treatment and expanded treatment and storage facilities. For storage facilities. For storage facilities. Other tritium recycling phaseout tritium recycling phaseout technologies may require at SRS, 2 yd3 per year at SRS, 2 yd3 per year expanded treatment decrease in solid mixed decrease in solid mixed capacity. LLW at SRS. LLW at SRS. For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- ities, hazardous waste gen- ities, hazardous waste gen- ities, solid hazardous ities, solid hazardous ities, hazardous waste gen- eration would increase. eration would increase. waste generation would waste generation would eration would increase. The increase over No The increase over No increase. The increase over increase. The increase over The increase over No Action (308 yd3 per year) Action (20 yd3 per year) No Action (1,150 yd3 per No Action (63 yd3 per Action (13 yd3 per year) would be: would be: year) would be: year) would be: would be: HWR: 41 yd3 per year HWR: 41 yd3 per year HWR: 41 yd3 per year HWR: 41 yd3 per year HWR: 40 yd3 per year MHTGR: 101 yd3 per MHTGR: 101 yd3 per MHTGR: 101 yd3 per MHTGR: 101 yd3 per MHTGR: 100 yd3 per year year year year year Large ALWR: 36 yd3 per Large ALWR: 36 yd3 per Large ALWR: 36 yd3 per Large ALWR: 36 yd3 per Large ALWR: 35 yd3 per year year year year year Small ALWR: 36 yd3 per Small ALWR: 36 yd3 per Small ALWR: 36 yd3 per Small ALWR: 36 yd3 per Small ALWR: 35 yd3 per year) year) year) year) year) APT: 4 yd3 per year APT: 4 yd3 per year APT: 4 yd3 per year APT: 4 yd3 per year APT: 3 yd3 per year Use of existing/planned Additional hazardous Existing/planned Use of existing/planned Additional hazardous hazardous waste facilities waste storage facilities hazardous waste facilities hazardous waste facilities waste storage facilities may be feasible. For may be required except for would be adequate. For would be adequate. For may be required except for tritium recycling phaseout APT. APT may require tritium recycling phaseout tritium recycling phaseout APT. APT may require at SRS, 1 yd3 per year expansion of exist- at SRS, 1 yd3 per year at SRS, 1 yd3 per year expansion of exist- decrease in hazardous ing/planned hazardous decrease in hazardous decrease in hazardous ing/planned hazardous waste at SRS. Decrease in waste storage facilities. waste at SRS. Decrease in waste at SRS. Decrease in waste storage facilities. offsite hazardous waste For tritium recycling offsite hazardous waste offsite hazardous waste shipments. phaseout at SRS, 1 yd3 per shipments. shipments. year decrease in hazardous waste at SRS. Decrease in offsite hazardous waste shipments. Waste Management-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and upgraded ities, liquid sanitary waste ities, liquid sanitary waste ities, liquid sanitary waste ities, liquid sanitary waste recycling facilities, liquid would be generated would be generated generation would increase. generation would increase. sanitary waste generation (260MGY) and require (260MGY) and require The increase over No The increase over No would increase. The new treatment facilities. new treatment facilities. Action (483 MGY) would Action (39.9 MGY) would increase over No Action For tritium recycling For tritium recycling be: be: (186 MGY) would be: phaseout at SRS, 32 MGY phaseout at SRS, 32 MGY - - - decrease in liquid sanitary decrease in liquid sanitary - - - waste at SRS. Decrease waste at SRS. Decrease - - - would occur over time as would occur over time as - - - recycling facilities are recycling facilities are - - - transitioned. transitioned. - - - - - - HWR: 2,380 MGY HWR: 62.3 MGY HWR: 2,350 MGY MHTGR: 1,660 MGY MHTGR: 44.3 MGY MHTGR: 1,630 MGY Large ALWR: 6,320 MGY Large ALWR: 104 MGY Large ALWR: 6,290 MGY Small ALWR: 2,880 MGY Small ALWR: 64.3 MGY Small ALWR: 2,850 MGY APT: 269 MGY APT: 260 MGY APT: 245 MGY - - - New treatment facilities New treatment facilities New treatment facilities would be required. For would be required. For would be required. tritium recycling phaseout tritium recycling phaseout at SRS, 32 MGY decrease at SRS, 32 MGY decrease in liquid sanitary waste at in liquid sanitary waste at SRS. Decrease would SRS. Decrease would occur over time as occur over time as recycling facilities are recycling facilities are transitioned. transitioned. Waste Management-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and upgraded ities, solid sanitary waste ities, solid sanitary waste ities, solid sanitary waste ities, solid sanitary waste recycling facilities, solid generation would increase. generation would increase. generation would increase. generation would increase. sanitary waste generation The increase over No The increase over No The increase over No The increase over No would increase. The Action (68,000 yd3 per Action (7,000 yd3 per Action (77,000 yd3 per Action (734 yd3 per year) increase over No Action year) would be: year) would be: year) would be: would be: (80,000 yd3 per year) - - - - would be: HWR: 15,000 yd3 per year HWR: 15,000 yd3 per year HWR: 15,000 yd3 per year HWR: 15,000 yd3 per year HWR: 7,600 yd3 per year MHTGR: 14,800 yd3 per MHTGR: 14,800 yd3 per MHTGR: 14,800 yd3 per MHTGR: 14,800 yd3 per MHTGR: 7,400 yd3 per year year year year year Large ALWR: 14,300 yd3 Large ALWR: 14,300 yd3 Large ALWR: 14,300 yd3 Large ALWR: 14,300 yd3 Large ALWR: 6,900 yd3 per year per year per year per year per year Small ALWR: 11,600 yd3 Small ALWR: 11,600 yd3 Small ALWR: 11,600 yd3 Small ALWR: 11,600 yd3 Small ALWR: 4,200 yd3 per year per year per year per year per year APT: 8,640 yd3 per year APT: 8,640 yd3 per year APT: 8,640 yd3 per year APT: 8,640 yd3 per year APT: 1,240 yd3 per year Onsite landfill design life Onsite landfill design life Onsite landfill design life Offsite (city of Amarillo) Onsite landfill design life would be reduced or would be reduced or would be reduced or landfill design life would would be reduced or require expansion. For require expansion. For require expansion. For be reduced or require require expansion. tritium recycling phaseout tritium recycling phaseout tritium recycling phaseout expansion. For tritium at SRS, 7,800 yd3 per year at SRS, 7,800 yd3 per year at SRS, 7,800 yd3 per year recycling phaseout at SRS, decrease in solid sanitary decrease in solid sanitary decrease in solid sanitary 7,800 yd3 per year waste at SRS. Decrease waste at SRS. Decrease waste at SRS. Decrease decrease in solid sanitary would occur over time as would occur over time as would occur over time as waste at SRS. Decrease recycling facilities are recycling facilities are recycling facilities are would occur over time as transitioned. Landfill life transitioned. Landfill life transitioned. Landfill life recycling facilities are would be extended. would be extended. would be extended. transitioned. Landfill life would be extended. For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium For collocated tritium supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- supply and recycling facil- ities, other solid nonhaz- ities, other solid nonhaz- ities, other solid nonhaz- ities, other solid nonhaz- ities, other solid nonhaz- ardous waste would be ardous waste would be ardous waste would be ardous waste would be ardous waste would be recycled. For tritium recycled. For tritium recycled. For tritium recycled. For tritium recycled. No tritium recycling phaseout at SRS, recycling phaseout at SRS, recycling phaseout at SRS, recycling phaseout at SRS, recycling phaseout. 6,800 yd3 per year 6,800 yd3 per year 6,800 yd3 per year 6,800 yd3 per year decrease in other solid decrease in other solid decrease in other solid decrease in other solid nonhazardous waste at nonhazardous waste at nonhazardous waste at nonhazardous waste at SRS. Decrease in SRS. Decrease in SRS. Decrease in SRS. Decrease in shipments to offsite recy- shipments to offsite recy- shipments to offsite recy- shipments to offsite recy- clers. clers. clers. clers. Waste Management-Tritium Supply Alone For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone No tritium supply alone. there would be no change there would be no change there would be no change there would be no change to the impacts for spent to the impacts for spent to the impacts for spent to the impacts for spent nuclear fuel. For tritium nuclear fuel. For tritium nuclear fuel. For tritium nuclear fuel. For tritium recycling upgrade at SRS recycling upgrade at SRS recycling upgrade at SRS recycling upgrade at SRS there would be no change there would be no change there would be no change there would be no change over No Action for spent over No Action for spent over No Action for spent over No Action for spent nuclear fuel. nuclear fuel. nuclear fuel. nuclear fuel. For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone No tritium supply alone. there would be no change there would be no change there would be no change there would be no change to the impacts for liquid to the impacts for liquid to the impacts for liquid to the impacts for liquid LLW. For tritium recycling LLW. For tritium recycling LLW. For tritium recycling LLW. For tritium recycling upgrade at SRS there upgrade at SRS there upgrade at SRS there upgrade at SRS there would be no change over would be no change over would be no change over would be no change over No Action for liquid LLW. No Action for liquid LLW. No Action for liquid LLW. No Action for liquid LLW. For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone No tritium supply alone. solid LLW generation solid LLW generation solid LLW generation solid LLW generation would increase and require would increase and require would increase and require would increase and require additional onsite LLW additional onsite LLW additional onsite LLW additional onsite LLW disposal area. The disposal area. The disposal area. The disposal area. The increase over No Action increase over No Action increase over No Action increase over No Action (5,100 yd3 per year) and (42,400 yd3 per year) and (9,300 yd3 per year) and (25 yd3 per year) and the the additional LLW the additional LLW the additional LLW additional LLW shipments disposal area would be: disposal area would be: disposal area would be: to NTS would be: HWR: 5,200 yd3 per year - HWR: 5,200 yd3 per year - HWR: 5,200 yd3 per year - HWR: 5,200 yd3 per year - 0.6 acres per year 0.6 acres per year 1.1 acres per year 86 shipments per year MHTGR: 1,300 yd3 per MHTGR: 1,300 yd3 per MHTGR: 1,300 yd3 per MHTGR: 1,300 yd3 per year - 0.2 acres per year year - 0.15 acres per year year - 0.3 acres per year year - 22 shipments per - - - year Large ALWR: 710 yd3 per Large ALWR: 710 yd3 per Large ALWR: 710 yd3 per Large ALWR: 710 yd3 per year -0.2 acres per year year -0.2 acres per year year -0.3 acres per year year -26 shipments per - - - year Small ALWR: 660 yd3 per Small ALWR: 660 yd3 per Small ALWR: 660 yd3 per Small ALWR: 660 yd3 per year -0.08 acres per year year -0.09 acres per year year -0.2 acres per year year -13 shipments per - - - year APT: 544 yd3 per year - APT: 544 yd3 per year - APT: 544 yd3 per year - APT: 544 yd3 per year - 0.07 acres per year 0.07 acres per year 0.1 acres per year 10 shipments per year Waste Management-Tritium Supply Alone For tritium recycling For tritium recycling For tritium recycling Additional LLW disposal No tritium supply alone. upgrade at SRS there upgrade at SRS there upgrade at SRS there area at NTS would be the would be no change over would be no change over would be no change over same as in NTS tritium No Action for solid LLW. No Action for solid LLW. No Action for solid LLW. supply alone alternatives. For tritium recycling upgrade at SRS there would be no change over No Action for solid LLW. For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone No tritium supply alone. liquid mixed LLW would liquid mixed LLW would liquid mixed LLW would liquid mixed LLW would no longer be generated. no longer be generated. no longer be generated. no longer be generated. For tritium recycling For tritium recycling For tritium recycling For tritium recycling upgrade at SRS there upgrade at SRS there upgrade at SRS there upgrade at SRS there would be no change over would be no change over would be no change over would be no change over No Action for liquid mixed No Action for liquid mixed No Action for liquid mixed No Action for liquid mixed LLW. LLW. LLW. LLW. For tritium supply alone, For tritium supply alone, For tritium supply alone, For tritium supply alone, - solid mixed LLW genera- solid mixed LLW genera- solid mixed LLW genera- solid mixed LLW genera- tion would increase. The tion would increase. The tion would increase. The tion would increase. The increase over No Action increase over No Action increase over No Action increase over No Action (655 yd3 per year) would (5,460 yd3 per year) would (11,100 yd3 per year) (5yd3 per year) would be: be: be: would be: - HWR : 120 yd3 per year HWR : 120 yd3 per year HWR : 120 yd3 per year HWR : 120 yd3 per year MHTGR: 1 yd3 per year MHTGR: 1 yd3 per year MHTGR: 1 yd3 per year MHTGR: 1 yd3 per year Large ALWR: 6 yd3 per Large ALWR: 6 yd3 per Large ALWR: 6 yd3 per Large ALWR: 6 yd3 per year year year year Small ALWR: 6 yd3 per Small ALWR: 6 yd3 per Small ALWR: 6 yd3 per Small ALWR: 6 yd3 per year year year year APT: 7 yd3 per year APT: 7 yd3 per year APT: 7 yd3 per year APT: 7 yd3 per year - - - - Impacts would remain the Impacts would remain the Impacts would remain the Impacts would remain the same as collocated tritium same as collocated tritium same as collocated tritium same as collocated tritium supply and recycling. For supply and recycling. For supply and recycling. For supply and recycling. For tritium recycling upgrade tritium recycling upgrade tritium recycling upgrade tritium recycling upgrade at SRS there would be no at SRS there would be no at SRS there would be no at SRS there would be no change over No Action for change over No Action for change over No Action for change over No Action for solid mixed LLW. solid mixed LLW. solid mixed LLW. solid mixed LLW. Waste Management-Tritium Supply Alone For tritium supply alone, For tritium supply alone, For tritium supply alone, For tritium supply alone, No tritium supply alone. hazardous waste genera- hazardous waste genera- hazardous waste genera- hazardous waste genera- tion would increase. The tion would increase. The tion would increase. The tion would increase. The increase over No Action increase over No Action increase over No Action increase over No Action (308 yd3 per year) would (20 yd3 per year) would (1,150 yd3 per year) would (63 yd3 per year) would be: be: be: be: HWR: 40 yd3 per year HWR: 40 yd3 per year HWR: 40 yd3 per year HWR: 40 yd3 per year MHTGR: 100 yd3 per year MHTGR: 100 yd3 per year MHTGR: 100 yd3 per year MHTGR: 100 yd3 per year Large ALWR: 35 yd3 per Large ALWR: 35 yd3 per Large ALWR: 35 yd3 per Large ALWR: 35 yd3 per year year year year Small ALWR: 35 yd3 per Small ALWR: 35 yd3 per Small ALWR: 35 yd3 per Small ALWR: 35 yd3 per year year year year APT: 3 yd3 per year APT: 3 yd3 per year APT: 3 yd3 per year APT: 3 yd3 per year Impacts would remain the Impacts would remain the Impacts would remain the Impacts would remain the same as collocated tritium same as collocated tritium same as collocated tritium same as collocated tritium supply and recycling. For supply and recycling. For supply and recycling. For supply and recycling. For tritium recycling upgrade tritium recycling upgrade tritium recycling upgrade tritium recycling upgrade at SRS there would be no at SRS there would be no at SRS there would be no at SRS there would be no change over No Action for change over No Action for change over No Action for change over No Action for hazardous waste. hazardous waste. hazardous waste. hazardous waste. For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone, For tritium supply alone, No tritium supply alone. liquid sanitary waste liquid sanitary waste liquid sanitary waste gen- liquid sanitary waste gen- would be generated (245 would be generated (245 eration would increase. eration would increase. MGY). Impacts would MGY). Impacts would The increase over No The increase over No remain the same as collo- remain the same as collo- Action (483 MGY) would Action (39.9 MGY) would cated tritium supply and cated tritium supply and be: be: recycling. For tritium recycling. For tritium HWR: 2,350 MGY HWR: 48 MGY recycling upgrade at SRS recycling upgrade at SRS MHTGR: 1,630 MGY MHTGR: 30 MGY there would be no change there would be no change Large ALWR: 6,290 MGY Large ALWR: 90 MGY over No Action for liquid over No Action for liquid Small ALWR: 2,850 MGY Small ALWR: 50 MGY sanitary waste. sanitary waste. APT: 245 MGY APT: 245 MGY - - Impacts would remain the Impacts would remain the same as collocated tritium same as collocated tritium supply and recycling. For supply and recycling. For tritium recycling upgrade tritium recycling upgrade at SRS there would be no at SRS there would be no change over No Action for change over No Action for liquid sanitary waste. liquid sanitary waste. Waste Management-Tritium Supply Alone For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone No tritium supply alone. solid sanitary waste gener- solid sanitary waste gener- solid sanitary waste gener- solid sanitary waste gener- ation would increase. The ation would increase. The ation would increase. The ation would increase. The increase over No Action increase over No Action increase over No Action increase over No Action (68,000 yd3 per year) (7,000 yd3 per year) would (77,000 yd3 per year) (734 yd3 per year) would would be: be: would be: be: HWR: 7,600 yd3 per year HWR: 7,600 yd3 per year HWR: 7,600 yd3 per year HWR: 7,600 yd3 per year MHTGR: 7,400 yd3 per MHTGR: 7,400 yd3 per MHTGR: 7,400 yd3 per MHTGR: 7,400 yd3 per year year year year Large ALWR: 6,900 Large ALWR: 6,900 Large ALWR: 6,900 Large ALWR: 6,900 yd3 per year yd3 per year yd3 per year yd3 per year Small ALWR: 4,200 Small ALWR: 4,200 Small ALWR: 4,200 Small ALWR: 4,200 yd3 per year yd3 per year yd3 per year yd3 per year APT: 1,240 yd3 per year APT: 1,240 yd3 per year APT: 1,240 yd3 per year APT: 1,240 yd3 per year Proportionately decreasing Proportionately decreasing Proportionately decreasing Proportionately decreasing impacts to landfill from impacts to landfill from impacts to landfill from impacts to landfill from collocated tritium supply collocated tritium supply collocated tritium supply collocated tritium supply and recycling. For tritium and recycling. For tritium and recycling. For tritium and recycling. For tritium recycling upgrade at SRS recycling upgrade at SRS recycling upgrade at SRS recycling upgrade at SRS there would be no change there would be no change there would be no change there would be no change over No Action for solid over No Action for solid over No Action for solid over No Action for solid sanitary waste. sanitary waste. sanitary waste. sanitary waste. For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone For tritium supply alone No tritium supply alone. other solid nonhazardous other solid nonhazardous other solid nonhazardous other solid nonhazardous waste would be recycled. waste would be recycled. waste would be recycled. waste would be recycled. For tritium recycling For tritium recycling For tritium recycling For tritium recycling upgrade at SRS there upgrade at SRS there upgrade at SRS there upgrade at SRS there would be no change over would be no change over would be no change over would be no change over No Action for other solid No Action for other solid No Action for other solid No Action for other solid nonhazardous waste. nonhazardous waste. nonhazardous waste. nonhazardous waste. Intersite Transport-No Action Under No Action negligi- Under No Action negligi- Under No Action negligi- Under No Action the Under No Action the ble tritium transport. ble tritium transport. ble tritium transport. cancer fatalities per year of cancer fatalities per year of transporting limited-life transporting limited-life components under components to/from accident conditions to and Pantex is negligible under from SRS would be 1x10-8 normal operation. Under from radiological affects. accident conditions, the cancer fatalities per year of transporting limited-life components to/from Pantex would be 1.0x10-8 from radiological affects. Intersite Transport-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling The relative transportation The relative transportation The relative transportation The relative transportation The relative transportation risk of tritium for collocat- risk of tritium for collocat- risk of tritium for collocat- risk of tritium for collocat- risk of tritium supply and ing supply and recycling is ing supply and recycling is ing supply and recycling is ing supply and recycling upgraded recycling is the 29 percent lower than the 30 percent lower than the 13 percent lower than the is0. same as the existing (No existing No Action case for existing No Action case for existing No Action case for Action) case for all tech- all technologies. all technologies. all technologies. nologies. The potential cancer fatali- The potential cancer fatali- The potential cancer fatali- The potential cancer fatali- There is no intersite ties per year for transport- ties per year for transport- ties per year for transport- ties per year for transport- transport of tritiated heavy ing tritiated heavy water ing tritiated heavy water ing tritiated heavy water ing tritiated heavy water water, therefore no for collocated supply and for collocated supply and for collocated supply and for collocated supply and transport cancer fatalities. recycling is 3.57x10-5 for recycling is 3.57x10-5 for recycling is 3.57x10-5 for recycling is 3.57x10-5 for the HWR and 6.63x10-6 the HWR and 6.63x10-6 the HWR and 6.63x10-6 the HWR and 6.63x10-6 for APT. for APT. for APT. for APT. Intersite Transport-Collocated Tritium Supply and Recycling No intersite transport of No intersite transport of No intersite transport of Credible accidents associ- No intersite transport of LLW. LLW. LLW. ated with intersite LLW. transport of LLW for col- located tritium supply and recycling would result in 5.2x10-9 to 3.0x10-8 fatal cancers per year from radiological releases and 6.9x10-5 to 4.0x10-4 fatal cancers per year from non radiological causes. The cancer fatalities year for each technology would be: - Radiological HWR: 3.0x10-8 MHTGR: 8.8x10-9 Large ALWR: 1.0x10-8 Small ALWR: 5.9x10-9 APT: 5.2x10-9 - Nonradiological HWR: 4.0x10-4 MHTGR: 1.2x10-4 Large ALWR: 1.4x10-4 Small ALWR: 7.7x10-5 APT: 6.9x10-5 Intersite Transport-Tritium Supply Alone The risk of transporting The risk of transporting The risk of transporting The risk of transporting No tritium supply alone. new tritium for a tritium new tritium for a tritium new tritium for a tritium new tritium for a tritium supply alone is about supply alone is about supply alone is about supply alone is about 2percent greater than No 2percent greater than No 2percent greater than No 2percent greater than No Action due to transporting Action due to transporting Action due to transporting Action due to transporting virgin tritium to SRS. virgin tritium to SRS. virgin tritium to SRS. virgin tritium to SRS. Intersite Transport-Tritium Supply Alone - - - Credible accidents associ- - ated with intersite transport of LLW for tritium supply alone would result in 3.3x10-9 to 2.8x10-8 fatal cancers per year from radiological releases and 4.3x10-5 to 3.7x10-4 fatal cancers per year from nonradiological releases. The cancer fatal- ities per year for each tech- nology would be: - Radiological HWR: 2.8x10-8 MHTGR: 7.15x10-9 Large ALWR: 8.5x10-9 Small ALWR: 4.2x10-9 APT: 3.3x10-9 - Nonradiological HWR: 3.7x10-4 MHTGR: 9.46x10-5 Large ALWR: 1.1x10-4 Small ALWR: 5.6x10-5 APT: 4.3x10-5 The potential cancer fatal- The potential cancer fatal- The potential cancer fatal- The potential cancer fatal- - ities per year for transport- ities per year for transport- ities per year for transport- ities per year for transport- ing tritiated heavy water ing tritiated heavy water ing tritiated heavy water ing tritiated heavy water for tritium supply alone is for tritium supply alone is for tritium supply alone is for tritium supply alone is 1.4x10-5 for the HWR and 1.4x10-5 for the HWR and 1.4x10-5 for the HWR and 1.4x10-5 for the HWR and 6.63x10-6 for APT. 6.63x10-6 for APT. 6.63x10-6 for APT. 6.63x10-6 for APT. The annual risk from trans- The annual risk from trans- No intersite transport of The annual risk from trans- The annual risk from trans- porting highly enriched porting highly enriched highly enriched uranium porting highly enriched porting highly enriched uranium fuel feel material uranium fuel feel material fuel feed material. uranium fuel feel material uranium fuel feel material for the HWR and MHTGR for the HWR and MHTGR for the HWR and MHTGR for the HWR and MHTGR alternatives from ORR to alternatives from ORR to alternatives from ORR to alternatives from ORR to INEL is 5.1x10-4. NTS is 5.1x10-4. Pantex is 5.1x10-4. SRS is 5.1x10-4. Table 3.6-2.-Summary Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Commercial Light Water Reactor Alternative [Page 1 of 2] Advanced Light Water Reactor Complete Construction Purchase Existing Reactor Purchase Irradiation Services - of a Commercial Reactor or Single Reactor Irradiation Services Multiple (2) Reactors Construction Construction would result in short- Construction related air emissions There would be no impacts related There would be no impacts related term exceedance of 24-hour PM10 would increase but would be to construction from this alternative to construction from this alternative and TSP standards. smaller than ALWR and of shorter at the plant site. A new extraction at the plant site. A new extraction duration. Emissions would be and target fabrication facility would and target fabrication facility would temporary and would not be be constructed at SRS. Emissions be constructed at SRS. Emissions expected to significantly affect air would be temporary and would not would be temporary and would not quality in the project site area. be expected to significantly affect be expected to significantly affect air quality in the project site area. air quality in the project site area. Total employment would be 12,600 Employment would require 3,530 Construction of the extraction Construction of the extraction worker-years over a 6-year period. to 5,730 worker-years over 5 years facility and target fabrication facility and target fabrication of construction for a 45 percent or facility would require 326 worker- facility would require 326 worker- 85 percent complete reactor, years over a 3 year period. years over a 3 year period. respectively. Hazardous waste generated from Hazardous waste generated from The annual average volume of The annual average volume of construction activities would be construction activities would be hazardous waste generated from hazardous waste generated from approximately 930 yd3. substantially less than an ALWR. construction of the extraction and construction of the extraction and target fabrication facilities would target fabrication facilities would be approximately 6 yd3. be approximately 6 yd3. Advanced Light Water Reactora Complete Construction of a Purchase Existing Reactor Purchase Radiation Services - Commercial Reactor or Single Reactor Irradiation Services Multiple (2) Reactors Operation Operation would require approxi- Operation would require approxi- Adding the tritium production Adding the tritium production mately 16 billion gallons of water mately the same amount of water as mission to an operating commercial mission to an operating commercial per year. No substantial impacts to the ALWR. reactor would require no additional reactor would require no additional surface water are expected. water consumption. water consumption. Operation would require approxi- Operation would require approxi- Operation would require Operation would require a total of mately 830 workers. mately 830workers. 72additional workers over the 127additional workers over the existing plant workforce. existing plant workforce. Approximately 193 dry storage Approximately 193 dry storage Approximately 137 dry storage Approximately 137 dry storage assemblies of spent fuel would be assemblies of spent fuel would be assemblies of spent fuel would be assemblies of spent fuel would be generated and: generated and: generated and: generated and: - 710 yd3 of LLW - 490 yd3 of LLW - 160 yd3 of LLW - 160 yd3 of LLW - 6 yd3 of mixed waste. -the amount of mixed waste would - no additional mixed waste would - no additional mixed waste would be similar to the ALWR. be generated. be generated. Worker exposure for all personnel Worker exposure for all personnel Worker exposure would increase Worker exposure would increase would be approximately would be approximately for all personnel by 48person-rem. for all personnel by 48person-rem. 170person-rem per year. 240person-rem. Tritium production would result in Gaseous and liquid tritium Tritium production would result in Tritium production would result in the emission of approximately emissions would be similar to the emission of 5,740curies per the emission of 3,680curies per 6,840 curies per year of gaseous ALWR. year of gaseous tritium and year per reactor of gaseous tritium tritium and 1,740 curies per year of 1,460curies per year of liquid and 935curies per year per reactor liquid tritium. tritium over the existing plant emis- of liquid tritium over the existing sions. plant emissions. Radiological releases associated Radioactive releases associated Radioactive releases associated Radioactive releases associated with production of tritium would with production of tritium would be with production of tritium would with production of tritium would result in an annual dose of similar to the ALWR. result in an annual dose increase of result in an annual dose increase of 90person-rem to the 50-mile popu- 0.5person-rem to the 50-mile pop- 0.5person-rem to the 50-mile pop- lation. ulation. ulation. For a high consequence/low proba- Similar to ALWR. No substantial increase in conse- No substantial increase in conse- bility accident, approximately quences or risk from accidents is quences or risk from accidents is 1.7cancer fatalities and a risk of expected. expected. 2.6x10-7 cancer fatalities per year could result. 3.7 Agency Preferred Alternative The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations require an agency to identify its preferred alternative(s) in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (40 CFR 1502.14(e)). The preferred alternative is the alternative which the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission, giving consideration to environmental, economic, technical, and other factors. Consequently, to identify a preferred alternative, the Department has developed information on potential environmental impacts, costs, technical risks, and schedule risks for the alternatives under consideration. This PEIS provides information on the environmental impacts. Cost, schedule, and technical analyses have also been prepared, and are summarized in the Tritium Supply and Recycling Technical Reference Report which is available in the appropriate DOE Reading Rooms for public review. Based upon the analysis presented in the documents identified above, the Department's preferred alternative is a acquisition strategy that assures tritium production for the nuclear weapons stockpile rapidly, cost-effectively, and safely. The preferred strategy is to begin work on the two most promising production alternatives: (1) purchase an existing commercial light water reactor or irradiation services with an option to purchase the reactor for conversion to a defense facility; (2) design, build, and test critical components of an accelerator system for tritium production. Within a three year period, the Department would select one of the alternatives to serve as the primary source of tritium. The other alternative, if feasible, would be developed as a back-up tritium source. Savannah River Site has been designated as the preferred site for an accelerator, should one be built. The preferred alternative for tritium recycling and extraction activities is to remain at the Savannah River Site with appropriate consolidation and upgrading of current facilities, and construction of a new extraction facility.Tritium Supply. Among the new facility alternatives, the accelerator has the highest probability to meet earlier production requirements because of less regulatory uncertainty. It also has the least environmental impact because it does not use fissile material, generates no high-level wastes, and while the risk from a severe accident is very small for all of the alternatives, the risk for the accelerator is the smallest. While all of the components of the accelerator have been proven, the entire system needs to be demonstrated to assure the components work together as a complete system. If the Department should select the accelerator as its primary production option, the SRS is the preferred site for the new facility because of its existing mission and infrastructure for tritium recycling. The principal discriminator among sites is mission related: of the four sites that have continuing defense missions (NTS, Pantex, ORR, and SRS) only SRS has a current tritium mission and an existing tritium recycling infrastructure. It should be noted that the analysis found all of the sites acceptable for an accelerator from a cost and environmental perspective. Policy and regulatory issues regarding the use of a commercial reactor(s) must be resolved including, for example, nonprolification and licensing. Since commercial reactors are already constructed and operating, adding the tritium mission to an existing reactor does not significantly increase any existing environmental impact. Using existing commercial reactors appears to offer the least expensive approach. In light of these uncertainties and the advantages of both alternatives a dual track, proving feasibility of both, is the preferred strategy. After proof of feasibility one alternative would be pursued as the primary means of production. The other alternative, if determined feasible, would be developed to the point where it would provide a fall back alternative or be available to meet increased production requirements at some future time. In any case, tritium targets for a commercial reactor would be developed and qualified to support the use of an existing commercial reactor as a contingency in the event of a national emergency. The dual track strategy for meeting tritium supply requirements with these two alternatives provides the following advantages: Major uncertainties resolved (technical with accelerator, policy and regulatory for the commercial reactor, cost for both) over the next three years, before selection of the primary alternative; For a new facility, lowest estimated environmental impacts for an accelerator and minor increase in environmental impact for an operating commercial reactor; Lessens programmatic risk by - providing fall back through use of two technically different and independent alternatives in the event either alternative develops significant problems, - providing proven independent capability to increase production, - developing and protecting the ability to support a contingency in the event of a national emergency, - selecting a strategy providing for production alternatives that include the greatest probability to meet earlier production requirements (accelerator), and the least cost option (irradiation services); Preserves an option for simultaneous reactor "burning" of excess weapons plutonium, if the Storage and Disposition of Weapons - Usable Fissile Materials Record of Decision selects reactor burning of that material. Tritium Recycling. Analysis of siting for the tritium recycling and extraction facilities led to the conclusion that keeping both of these functions at the SRS provides both lowest cost and least environmental impact. Therefore, both of these functions remain at the SRS with appropriate consolidation and upgrading of current recycling facilities, and a new extraction facility.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
