[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7877-7887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2271]
[[Page 7877]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision for the Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research
and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United States,
Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility
AGENCY: Department of Energy (the Department).
ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the
Department's missions include: (1) Producing isotopes for research and
applications in medicine and industry; (2) meeting nuclear material
needs of other Federal agencies; and (3) conducting research and
development activities for civilian use of nuclear power. The
Department has evaluated potential enhancements to its nuclear
infrastructure that would allow it to meet these responsibilities over
approximately the next three to four decades. As part of this
evaluation, the Department prepared the Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy
Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United
States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility (Nuclear
Infrastructure or NI PEIS) pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The NI PEIS evaluates environmental impacts that
could result from implementation of alternatives and options that were
considered for enhancement of the Department's nuclear infrastructure.
The Final NI PEIS (DOE/EIS-0310) was issued on December 15, 2000 (65 FR
78484).
After considering the environmental impacts, costs, public
comments, nonproliferation issues, and programmatic factors, the
Department has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative
identified in Section 2.8 of the Final NI PEIS (Alternative 2, Option
7). Domestic production of plutonium-238 will be reestablished to
support U.S. space exploration. For this purpose, the Advanced Test
Reactor (ATR) in Idaho and the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee will be used to
irradiate neptunium-237 targets. Plutonium-238 production will not
interfere with existing primary missions at ATR and HFIR. The
Radiochemical Engineering Development Center (REDC) at ORNL will be
used for fabricating targets and isolating plutonium-238 from the
irradiated targets.
The Department expects its current nuclear infrastructure to
satisfy short-term requirements for isotopes needed in medicine,
industry, and research, and nuclear energy research for civilian
applications. If significantly larger amounts of isotopes are required
in the future, others would need to respond to these requirements. To
explore a potential option to address some future research
infrastructure needs, DOE intends to work over the next two years to
establish a conceptual design for an Advanced Accelerator Applications
(AAA) facility, which could be modified to produce some proton-enriched
isotopes. The new accelerator(s) (Alternative 3) and new research
reactor (Alternative 4) described in the NI PEIS will not be
constructed. The Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) in Washington will be
permanently deactivated. If DOE proposes specific enhancements of
existing facilities or deployment of the AAA facility, further NEPA
review would be conducted.
ADDRESSES: The Final NI PEIS, including the NI PEIS Summary, and this
ROD are available on the Department's National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) website at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/docs/docs.htm. The ROD is
also available at web address http://www.nuclear.gov. Requests for
copies of the NI PEIS, the NI PEIS Summary, or this ROD should be
mailed to Colette E. Brown, Document Manager, Office of Space and
Defense Power Systems (NE-50), Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology, U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road,
Germantown, MD 20874, Attention: NI PEIS. Requests may also be
electronically mailed to Internet address [email protected] or
faxed to Ms. Brown at 301-903-1510.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the nuclear
infrastructure missions, alternatives, or environmental impacts,
contact Colette E. Brown at the addresses given in the previous
paragraph. For general information on the Department's NEPA process,
please contact Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and
Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; call 202-586-4600; or leave a
message at the toll-free telephone number, 800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 5, 1998, the Department published a Notice of Intent (63
FR 53398) to prepare an environmental impact statement concerning the
production of plutonium-238 in support of U.S. space missions.
Following the public scoping process, which was extended until January
4, 1999, the Department began preparation of the Environmental Impact
Statement for the Proposed Production of Plutonium-238 for Use in
Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems for Future Space Missions
(Plutonium-238 Production EIS). Restarting FFTF was dismissed as a
reasonable alternative for that proposed EIS because it would not be
cost effective to restart the reactor for the sole purpose of producing
plutonium-238.
On August 18, 1999, the Department announced that it would prepare
the NI PEIS--a programmatic NEPA document that would evaluate the
environmental impacts that could result from enhancement of the
Department's nuclear infrastructure. Restart of FFTF was included as a
reasonable alternative in the NI PEIS for several missions, including
the production of plutonium-238. Preparation of the Plutonium-238
Production EIS was terminated as a separate NEPA review and its scope
was incorporated in the NI PEIS.
Purpose and Need for Agency Action
The Department's obligations under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
require it to operate and maintain nuclear facilities such as reactors,
accelerators, and various nuclear support facilities. The shutdown of
aging facilities coupled with projected increases in demand for nuclear
services and products necessitated an assessment of the Department's
nuclear infrastructure needs.
Over the past 50 years, the use of isotopes in medicine and
industry has increased markedly. Currently, over 12 million nuclear
medical procedures are performed each year in the United States. Expert
medical panels have projected significant increases in the use of
nuclear diagnostic, therapeutic, and research medicines during the
early decades of the twenty-first century. As discussed in the NI PEIS,
Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1, an Expert Panel convened by the Department in
1998 concluded that the growth in demand for diagnostic and therapeutic
isotopes would likely exceed seven percent per year over the next 20
years. The Panel also concluded that the cost and availability of
medical isotopes would constrain progress in various areas of medical
research. The Expert Panel's findings were adopted by the Nuclear
Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC), which further concluded
that the current domestic nuclear
[[Page 7878]]
infrastructure is not adequate to ensure a continued supply of medical
isotopes in the face of projected increases in demand. Approximately
one-half of the Department's current isotope production capability is
being used. Projections of increased demands for medical isotopes
indicate that the Department's production capability will be fully
utilized within a decade or less in the absence of enhancements to the
existing nuclear infrastructure.
The Department and its predecessor agencies have supplied
plutonium-238 for U.S. space programs for more than three decades. The
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) uses plutonium-238
as a source of electric power and heat for deep space missions. Nuclear
reactors and chemical processing facilities at the Department's
Savannah River Site (SRS) historically produced plutonium-238 for the
Nation's space programs. However, all nuclear reactors at SRS have been
shut down. Chemical processing facilities in F-Canyon and H-Canyon at
SRS are scheduled for shutdown following completion of their current
mission to prepare Cold War legacy nuclear materials and some spent
nuclear fuel for disposition. In 1992, the Department signed a five-
year contract to purchase up to 10 kilograms (22 pounds) of plutonium-
238 per year from Russia--not to exceed 40 kilograms (88 pounds) total.
In 1997, a five-year contract extension was negotiated. The extension
will expire in 2002. Thus far, approximately 9 kilograms (20 pounds) of
plutonium-238 have been purchased from Russia under this contract.
Plutonium-238 is purchased from Russia on an as-needed basis because it
is costly to remove the decay products that result from an extended
period of storage. As discussed in detail in Section 1.2.2 of the NI
PEIS, updated mission guidance from NASA indicates that the U.S.
inventory of plutonium-238 reserved for U.S. space missions is likely
to be depleted by 2005. The Department must decide how to continue to
meet NASA's need for plutonium-238 beyond that point.
In November 1997, the President's Committee of Advisors on Science
and Technology reported that restoring a viable nuclear energy option
is important to the Nation's ability to meet its expanding energy
requirements (See NI PEIS, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.3). The Committee
recommended that the Department reinvigorate its nuclear energy
research and development activities to address potential barriers to
the expanded use of nuclear power. In response to this recommendation,
the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative was started in fiscal year 1999,
and the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program was started in fiscal
year 2000. The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative sponsors research and
development focused on the removal of barriers to the expanded use of
nuclear power. Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization is a cost-shared
program with private industry that sponsors research and development
intended to ensure that current nuclear plants can continue to provide
electric power up to and beyond their initial 40-year license period.
In June 2000, the NERAC Subcommittee on Long-Term Planning for Nuclear
Energy Research developed guidelines for research and development in
the areas of materials research, nuclear fuel research, and advanced
reactor development. One of the Department's objectives is to provide
and maintain a nuclear infrastructure that supports civilian nuclear
energy research and development.
In summary, the Department's activities regarding medical isotope
supplies, support of U.S. space missions, and research and development
in the area of civilian nuclear technology will require an appropriate
nuclear infrastructure. In reaching its decision concerning a nuclear
infrastructure appropriate for the next 35 years, the Department
assigned equal priority to all of these responsibilities.
NEPA Process
On September 15, 1999, the Department published a Notice of Intent
in the Federal Register (64 FR 50064) to prepare the NI PEIS. The 45-
day scoping period for the NI PEIS ended on October 31, 1999. Scoping
meetings were held in locations central to potentially affected areas
(Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Idaho Falls, Idaho; and Richland, Washington),
as well as areas in which the alternatives would have little or no
environmental impact, but in which there was public interest (Hood
River, Oregon; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and Washington,
D.C.).
The Department received approximately 7,000 scoping comments. As a
result of comments received during the scoping period, a new
alternative (Permanently Deactivate FFTF with No New Missions) was
added to the alternatives evaluated in the NI PEIS, the Fluorinel
Dissolution Process Facility (FDPF) in Idaho was added as a processing
facility for the processing of plutonium-238, and a commercial light
water reactor at a generic site was added as a candidate irradiation
facility for the production of plutonium-238. Other comments included
requests for inclusion of information about cleanup and environmental
contamination at Hanford, nonproliferation issues including the
proposed import of German SNR-300 fuel, transition of FFTF stewardship
after it is deactivated, the restart of FFTF and associated budget
constraints, and the Tri Party Agreement at Hanford. This information
was included in the Draft NI PEIS and/or the separate NI
Nonproliferation Impact Assessment report.
Availability of the Draft NI PEIS was announced in the Federal
Register on July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46443). The public comment period
extended through September 18, 2000. Seven public hearings were held
during late August and early September 2000 at the same locations as
the scoping meetings. Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations (40 CFR 1505.1(e)), agencies are encouraged to make
ancillary decision documents available to the public before a decision
is made. The associated cost report and nonproliferation report were
made available to the public on August 24, 2000, and September 8, 2000,
respectively. The Department mailed these documents to approximately
730 interested parties, and the reports were made available immediately
upon release on the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
website (http://www.nuclear.gov) and in public reading rooms.
Over 6,000 comments were received during the comment period for the
Draft NI PEIS. While a wide variety of comments was received, the
dominant concerns focused on the: (1) Purpose and need for enhancements
to the Department's nuclear infrastructure; (2) impact of certain
alternatives on the cleanup efforts at candidate sites and compliance
with the existing cleanup agreements; (3) management and disposition of
nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel resulting from implementation of
the alternatives; (4) costs and cost benefits of the alternatives; (5)
potential effects on nuclear weapons nonproliferation; (6) fairness and
effectiveness of the public involvement and decision process; (7)
impacts on human health and water quality; (8) safety of reactor
operations; (9) use of plutonium-238 in space applications; and (10)
restart or deactivation of the Fast Flux Text Facility (FFTF). Comments
were considered by the Department and responses were included in Volume
3 of the Final NI PEIS. The NI PEIS was revised in response to comments
wherever appropriate. The Notice of Availability for the Final NI PEIS
was
[[Page 7879]]
published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2000 (65 FR 78484).
II. Facility and Site Options
Candidate Irradiation Facilities
Three nuclear reactors were included in the environmental
evaluation as candidate irradiation facilities: ATR at Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL); HFIR at ORNL; and
FFTF at the Hanford Site. Environmental impacts were also estimated for
a generic CLWR, one or two new accelerators at an unspecified
Departmental site, and a new research reactor at an unspecified
Departmental site.
ATR is a light-water-cooled
and -moderated nuclear reactor with a design thermal power of 250
megawatts. Special features of ATR include high neutron flux levels and
the ability to vary power to fit different experiment needs in
different test positions. ATR operates with highly enriched uranium
fuel (uranium fuel containing more than 20 percent uranium-235). The
primary mission at ATR is to support naval reactor research and
development. The Department proposes to use ATR for isotope production
and civilian nuclear energy research missions on a noninterference
basis. The Department estimates that ATR alone could produce up to 5
kilograms (11 pounds) of plutonium-238 per year and could be used in
combination with any one of the candidate processing facilities for
plutonium-238 production.
HFIR is a light-water-cooled and -moderated reactor operated at a
thermal power level of 85 megawatts. It is used for both isotope
production and neutron research. Originally designed to operate at a
full power level of 100 megawatts-thermal, it currently operates at a
maximum authorized power level of 85 megawatts-thermal to extend the
useful life of the reactor. The reactor operates with highly enriched
uranium fuel. The primary mission at HFIR is neutron research for the
Department's Office of Science. Civilian nuclear energy research and
additional isotope production will be undertaken on a noninterference
basis. To complement plutonium-238 production at ATR, HFIR could
produce up to 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) per year.
FFTF is a 400-megawatts-thermal, sodium-cooled nuclear test
reactor. It was operated from April 1982 to December 1993. FFTF was
used primarily to evaluate reactor fuels and different fuel assembly
materials during its 10 years of operation. It also supported test
programs for industry, nuclear energy (domestic and international),
medical isotope applications and research, space nuclear power, and
fusion research programs. FFTF was placed in standby condition in 1993
because of a lack of economically viable missions. Reactor fuel has
been removed. The Main Heat Transport System is being operated at
approximately 200 deg.C (400 deg.F) to keep sodium coolant in the
reactor liquefied and circulating. Restarting FFTF would require
mechanical equipment upgrades and replacement of outdated control and
computer systems. FFTF initially would have operated with mixed-oxide
(uranium-plutonium) fuel, followed by operation with uranium fuel. Had
FFTF been selected as an irradiation facility, production of medical
isotopes and civilian nuclear technology research would have been the
primary missions at FFTF.
A CLWR was evaluated as an irradiation facility for plutonium-238
production. No specific light water reactor was selected. Thus, typical
characteristics of CLWRs were assumed for the environmental analysis. A
typical pressurized water reactor core consists of 170 to 200 fuel
assemblies arranged in the reactor vessel in an approximately
cylindrical pattern. Most pressurized water reactors operating in the
United States are licensed to operate at thermal power levels of 2,500
to 3,500 megawatts for net station electric outputs of 800 to 1,200
megawatts-electric. The primary mission of a CLWR is the production of
electric power. Plutonium-238 production would have been conducted on a
noninterference basis. Had a CLWR been selected for production of
plutonium-238, site specific NEPA reviews would have been conducted
prior to selection of a CLWR.
The Department considered construction of one or two accelerators
at an unspecified DOE site as candidate irradiation facilities.
Environmental impacts that could have resulted from construction and
operation of the accelerator(s) used preconceptual designs for low- and
high-energy accelerators. The low-energy accelerator was designed to
support medical and industrial isotope production as well as civilian
nuclear energy research. The high-energy accelerator was designed to
support plutonium-238 production and civilian nuclear energy research.
The preconceptual designs are described in the NI PEIS. Had either or
both accelerator(s) been selected for implementation, site-specific
NEPA reviews would have been conducted prior to site selection and
production of isotopes and civilian nuclear energy research would have
been the primary missions at those facilities.
The Department also considered construction of a new research
reactor at an unspecified DOE site as a candidate irradiation facility.
A preconceptual design was developed for a new research reactor that
would: (1) Produce medical and industrial isotopes, (2) produce up to 5
kilograms (11 pounds) of plutonium-238 per year, and (3) support
civilian nuclear energy research and development. The new research
reactor would have been fueled by low-enriched uranium (uranium fuel
containing less than 20 percent uranium-235). This preconceptual design
included the basic elements of the research reactor facility sufficient
for the environmental analysis. Had a new research reactor been
selected for implementation, site-specific NEPA reviews would have been
conducted prior to site selection. Production of isotopes and civilian
nuclear energy research would have been the primary missions at the new
research reactor.
Candidate Target Fabrication and Postirradiation Processing Facilities
Processing facilities at three Departmental sites were included in
the environmental evaluation as candidate target fabrication and
postirradiation processing facilities: REDC at ORNL; FDPF at INEEL; the
Fuels and Materials Examination Facility (FMEF) at Hanford; and the
Radiochemical Processing Laboratory (RPL)/Development Fabrication Test
Laboratory (Building 306-E), also at Hanford. Environmental impacts
were also estimated for a new generic support facility at an
unspecified DOE site.
REDC at ORNL is a companion facility to HFIR. REDC's two buildings
house shielded hot cells and analytical laboratories. These hot cells
and laboratories are used in the fabrication of fuel rods and targets
for irradiation and to process irradiated rods and targets for the
separation and purification of transuranic elements, process
development, and product purification and packaging. Several
alternatives and options (including the Preferred Alternative) included
the use of ORNL's REDC Building 7930 for storage of neptunium-237 and
fabrication and postirradiation processing of neptunium-237 targets.
The REDC hot cell facilities to be used under the Preferred
Alternative have not yet been used for any mission. Activities required
for target fabrication will take place in shielded glove boxes.
Mechanical operations involved in the final target fabrication present
lesser hazards that may permit them to be
[[Page 7880]]
carried out in open boxes. Cell E will contain processing equipment to
purify the separated plutonium-238 product, prepare the plutonium
oxide, and transfer the oxide into shipping containers. Cell E will
also contain vertical storage wells for dry storage of neptunium and
other actinides. Cell D activities will include receipt of irradiated
targets, as well as target dissolution, chemical separation of
neptunium and plutonium from fission products, and partitioning and
purification of neptunium. Cell D also contains process equipment to
remove transuranic elements from the aqueous waste streams and
vitrifying waste.
FDPF is in the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center
(INTEC), which is located northeast of the Central Facilities Area at
INEEL and approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) southeast of ATR. FDPF
was a candidate fabrication and postirradiation processing facility in
several options under Alternatives 1 through 4. FDPF has no current
mission. Historically, INTEC reprocessed spent nuclear fuel from U.S.
Government reactors to recover reusable highly enriched uranium. After
the Department announced in April 1992 that it would no longer
reprocess spent fuel, reprocessing operations at INTEC ended.
Two buildings at INTEC were candidate storage and processing sites
for plutonium-238 production: Building CPP-651, the Unirradiated Fuel
Storage Facility, and Building CPP-666, FDPF. Under this alternative,
chemical separation would occur in the FDPF cell using small
centrifugal contactors installed for that purpose. Neptunium-237 would
have been stored in FDPF or Building CPP-651, which is located within
100 meters (328 feet) of FDPF. There are 100 in-ground, concrete-
shielded storage well positions in this vault. Each storage well
contains a rack that can be modified to house containers for neptunium-
237.
Hanford's FMEF was a candidate facility for storage of neptunium-
237, fabrication of neptunium-237 targets, and processing of irradiated
neptunium-237 targets for several options under Alternatives 1 through
4. FMEF could have supported medical and industrial production mission
and civilian nuclear energy research and development mission activities
at the Hanford Site under Alternative 1. FMEF is west of FFTF in the
400 Area of Hanford. It was built during the late 1970s and early 1980s
as a major addition to the breeder reactor technology development
program at Hanford. Although it has never been used, the facility was
constructed to perform fuel fabrication and development and
postirradiation examination of breeder reactor fuels.
FMEF is currently being maintained in mission-ready condition. In
1998, to reduce the cost of maintaining the facility, many systems were
shut down and most hazardous materials were removed from the building.
FMEF is uncontaminated because no nuclear materials have been
introduced. Some critical systems remain in operation, e.g., the fire
detection and protection systems. To avoid freezing of the fire
protection water systems, limited heating and ventilation remains
operational. Electric power and lighting remain available, and the
freight elevator remains in service to support routine facility
inspection and maintenance. The use of FMEF for neptunium-237 target
material storage, target fabrication, and post-irradiation processing
would have required construction of a new 76-meter (250-foot) stack.
Two Hanford 300 Area facilities were considered for support of
medical and industrial isotope target fabrication and post-irradiation
processing: RPL and Building 306-E. RPL/306-E were candidate facilities
to support medical and industrial isotope production and civilian
nuclear energy research and development activities. RPL would have been
the primary site for fabricating the radioactive targets (i.e., targets
containing radium-226 or recycled materials from previous
irradiations).
Total space within RPL is 13,350 square meters (143,700 square
feet), of which 4,140 square meters (44,500 square feet) are occupied
by general chemistry laboratories. A recent space utilization survey of
RPL indicated that 646 square meters (6,950 square feet), representing
15.6 percent of the laboratory area, are presently unoccupied. All of
the occupied and nearly all of the unoccupied laboratories are
functional and equipped with standard utilities. Of the 79 functional
fume hoods and 23 shielded glove boxes, 50 fume hoods and 15 glove
boxes are available for additional work.
Building 306-E was constructed in 1956 as part of the nuclear
material production program at Hanford. It was used to develop the co-
extrusion process for N-Reactor fuel. Major upgrades and renovations
were completed in the late 1960s and early 1970s to support the
civilian reactor development program. These activities would not have
impacted current missions at the facilities.
A new generic support facility would have had the mission of
preparing medical and industrial isotope targets for irradiation,
processing exposed targets, and housing the materials research and
development activities in association with Alternatives 3 and 4. Siting
of the generic support facility for medical and industrial isotope
production would have required that the facility be located in the same
general vicinity (within 0.2 to 20 kilometers [0.07 to 12.4 miles]) as
the new irradiation facility (accelerator or reactor). Collocation with
the irradiation facility would have been needed to process irradiated
target materials promptly after removal from the reactor/accelerator
and to minimize transportation time. Although the facility could have
been located within the irradiation facility security protection area,
the lack of a defense mission and the lack of a fissile material
presence in the generic support facility indicate that a high level of
physical protection would not have been warranted.
III. Alternatives and Options
The Department evaluated potential environmental impacts that could
result from implementation of alternatives and options that support
isotope production and civilian nuclear energy research. A No Action
Alternative and five programmatic alternatives were assessed. Table 1
summarizes the facilities associated with each alternative option.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative (maintain status quo), FFTF would
have been maintained in standby status for 35 years. Ongoing operations
at existing facilities would have continued. The Department would not
establish a domestic plutonium-238 production capability, but would
have continued to purchase Russian plutonium-238 to meet the long-term
needs of future U.S. space missions. For the purposes of the
environmental analysis, it was assumed that the purchase of plutonium-
238 from Russia would continue as needed to support U.S. space
missions. The environmental analysis included transportation impacts
that could result from the purchase of up to 175 kilograms (385.8
pounds) of plutonium-238 from Russia. Any purchase of plutonium-238
beyond that currently available in the United States through the
existing contract would require additional NEPA review. The
Department's medical and industrial isotope production and civilian
nuclear energy research and development activities would have continued
at the current operating levels. A consequence of a No Action decision
would have
[[Page 7881]]
been the need to determine the future of the neptunium-237 stored at
SRS. Therefore, the impacts of possible future transportation and
storage of neptunium-237 were evaluated as part of the No Action
Alternative.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 7882]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA01.000
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
[[Page 7883]]
Four options were analyzed under the No Action Alternative. If the
Department had decided not to reestablish domestic production of
plutonium-238, the inventory of neptunium-237 would have had no
programmatic value and Option 1 would have been selected. Under this
option, neptunium-237 would have been stabilized in solution form at
SRS. Had the Department decided to maintain the neptunium-237 inventory
for future plutonium-238 production, the neptunium-237 oxide inventory
would have been transported from SRS to one of three candidate sites
for up to 35 years of storage for possible future use: Option 2, REDC
at ORNL; Option 3, Building CPP-651 at INEEL; or Option 4, FMEF at
Hanford. The Department's nuclear infrastructure would not have been
expanded under the No Action Alternative.
Alternative 1--Restart FFTF
Under Alternative 1, FFTF at Hanford would have been restarted and
operated at a nominal 100 megawatts for 35 years. Production of
isotopes and research in civilian nuclear energy would have been the
primary missions at FFTF. Targets for medical and industrial isotope
production would have been fabricated at one or more facilities at
Hanford, irradiated at FFTF, and then returned to the fabrication
facility for postirradiation processing. From there, the isotope
products would have been sent to commercial pharmaceutical or
industrial distributors.
Under this alternative, neptunium-237 would have been transported
from SRS to one of the three fabrication/postirradiation processing
facilities shown in Table 1: ORNL (Options 1 and 4), INEEL (Options 2
and 5), or Hanford (Options 3 and 6), where targets would have been
fabricated as needed to support U.S. space missions. Following
irradiation at FFTF, the irradiated targets would have been returned to
the fabrication facility for postirradiation extraction of plutonium-
238. Plutonium-238 then would have been transported to Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico for use in heat and electric
power sources.
Under Alternative 1, raw materials, nonirradiated targets,
irradiated targets, and processed materials would have been transported
between the locations selected for raw target material acquisition,
material storage, target fabrication, target irradiation, and
postirradiation processing, as well as the final destination for the
medical and industrial isotopes and the plutonium-238 product or
various research and development test sites. The six options under this
alternative are associated with the type of nuclear fuel which was to
be used for FFTF operations and the specific facilities which were to
be used for target fabrication and processing. The first three options
(Options 1 through 3) would have involved operating FFTF with mixed
oxide fuel for the first 21 years and uranium fuel for the remaining 14
years. Options 4 through 6 would have involved operating FFTF with
mixed oxide fuel for the first 6 years and uranium fuel for the
remaining 29 years. Environmental impacts that will result from
deactivation of FFTF at the end of its operating life are addressed
under Alternative 5.
Alternative 2--Use Only Existing Operational Facilities
Under Alternative 2, the Department will use existing operating
reactors to produce plutonium-238 for future space missions. The
production of medical and industrial isotopes and support for civilian
nuclear energy research and development will continue at approximately
current levels without expansion of the Department's nuclear
infrastructure.
Environmental impacts were estimated for three irradiation
facilities: ATR (only) at INEEL (Options 1 through 3), a generic CLWR
(Options 4 through 6), and ATR/HFIR at ORNL (Options 7 through 9). ATR,
HFIR, and the CLWR would continue their current primary missions under
all options of Alternative 2. Production of plutonium-238 will be
conducted as a secondary mission on a noninterference basis. Under
Alternative 2, Alternative 5 would also be selected and FFTF would be
permanently deactivated.
Neptunium-237 will be processed and transported from SRS to the
fabrication facility, where it will be stored until fabrication. The NI
PEIS evaluates environmental impacts that could result from target
fabrication/postirradiation processing at one of three facilities at
ORNL (the preferred facility), INEEL, or Hanford (see Table 1). The
targets will be irradiated at ATR and HFIR. Environmental impacts that
could result from using a CLWR for irradiation services are also
included in the NI PEIS. After irradiation, neptunium-237 targets will
be transported back to the fabricating facility for postirradiation
processing.
Under Alternative 2, nonirradiated targets, irradiated targets, and
processed materials will be transported between the locations selected
for storage, target fabrication, target irradiation, and
postirradiation processing. In addition, the plutonium-238 product will
be transported to LANL.
If DOE proposes specific enhancements of existing facilities in
order to implement Alternative 2, further NEPA review would be
conducted.
Alternative 3--Construct New Accelerator(s)
Under Alternative 3, one or two new accelerators would have been
used for target irradiation. The new accelerator(s) would have been
constructed at an existing DOE site(s). Production of isotopes
including plutonium-238, and civilian nuclear energy research would
have been the primary missions at the new accelerators.
Neptunium-237 would have been transported from SRS to the
fabrication facility, where it would have been stored until
fabrication. Targets for plutonium-238 production would have been
fabricated in one of the three alternative facilities at ORNL (Option
1), INEEL (Option 2), or Hanford (Option 3). The targets would have
been irradiated in a new high-energy accelerator and then transported
back to the target fabrication facility for postirradiation processing.
Target materials for medical and industrial isotope production
would have been stored on site until fabricated into targets in a new
support facility located at the same site as the low-energy
accelerator. The targets would have been irradiated in the low-energy
accelerator and returned to the new support facility for
postirradiation processing. Because Alternative 3 was evaluated at a
generic site, site selection was not evaluated as part of the NI PEIS
and no credit was taken for any support infrastructure existing at the
generic site. It was assumed that a new support facility would be
required to support operation of the low-energy accelerator and its
missions and the high-energy accelerator civilian nuclear energy
research and development missions if both accelerators were located on
the same site. While this approach bounds the environmental impact
assessment for the implementation of Alternative 3, it overstates the
impacts because the NI PEIS integrates the impacts associated with
constructing new support facilities and infrastructure that may already
be available at the existing site. Had Alternative 3 been selected for
implementation, site-specific NEPA reviews would have been conducted
prior to site selection.
Under Alternative 3, nonirradiated targets, irradiated targets, and
processed materials would have been transported between the locations
selected for
[[Page 7884]]
storage, target fabrication, target irradiation, postirradiation
processing, and the final destination of the plutonium-238. The
environmental evaluation of Alternative 3 also included environmental
effects resulting from decontamination and decommissioning of the
accelerator(s) and the processing facility when the missions are over,
as well as deactivation of FFTF at Hanford.
Alternative 4--Construct New Research Reactor
Under Alternative 4, a new research reactor would have been used
for target irradiation. The new research reactor would have been
constructed at an existing site. Production of isotopes including
plutonium-238, and civilian nuclear energy research would have been the
primary missions at the new research reactor.
Neptunium-237 would have been transported from SRS to the
fabrication facilities where it would have been stored until
fabrication. As shown in Table 1, targets for plutonium-238 production
would have been fabricated at one of the three facilities at ORNL
(Option 1), INEEL (Option 2), or Hanford (Option 3). The targets would
have been irradiated in the new research reactor and transported back
to the target fabrication facilities for postirradiation processing.
Targets for medical and industrial isotope production would have
been fabricated in a new support facility located at the same site as
the new research reactor. Target materials would have been stored on
site until fabrication. The targets would have been irradiated in the
new research reactor and returned to the new support facility for
postirradiation processing.
Because Alternative 4 was evaluated at a generic DOE site, site
selection was not evaluated as part of the NI PEIS and no credit was
taken for any existing support infrastructure at the site. It was
assumed that a new support facility would be required to support the
new research reactor. While this approach bounds the environmental
impact assessment for the implementation of Alternative 4, it
overstates the impacts because the NI PEIS integrates the impacts
associated with constructing new support facilities and infrastructure
that may already be available at the existing site. If selected, this
alternative would require site-specific NEPA reviews to be completed
prior to site selection.
Under Alternative 4, nonirradiated targets, irradiated targets, and
processed materials would have been transported between the locations
selected for storage, target fabrication, target irradiation,
postirradiation processing, and the final destination of the plutonium-
238. The environmental evaluation of Alternative 4 also included
environmental effects resulting from decontamination and
decommissioning the research reactor and the processing facility when
the missions are over, as well as deactivation of FFTF at Hanford.
Alternative 5--Permanently Deactivate FFTF with No New Missions
Under Alternative 5, the Department would have permanently
deactivated FFTF, with no new missions. Medical and industrial isotope
production and civilian nuclear energy research and development
missions at existing facilities would have continued at current levels.
The Department's nuclear facilities infrastructure would not have been
enhanced.
IV. 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 that 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 developed information on potential
environmental impacts, costs, policy issues, and technical and schedule
risks for the alternatives described in the NI PEIS. The NI PEIS
provides information on environmental impacts. Cost, nonproliferation
policy, and various technical reports have also been prepared and are
available for public review in the Department's reading rooms.
The Department's Preferred Alternative, as identified in the Final
NI PEIS, was to apply its existing infrastructure to pursue missions
outlined in the NI PEIS. Under this approach, the Department would
consider opportunities to enhance its existing facilities to maximize
the agency's ability to address future mission needs.
Under the Preferred Alternative, the Department would reestablish
domestic production of plutonium-238, as needed, to support U.S. space
explorations. As discussed in NI PEIS, Chapter 1, Section 1.2.2,
reestablishing a domestic plutonium-238 production capability would
ensure that the United States has a long-term, reliable supply of this
material. ATR in Idaho and HFIR in Tennessee would be used, as
appropriate, to irradiate targets for this purpose without interfering
with either reactor's primary mission. The Preferred Alternative
includes fabricating and processing targets for the production of
plutonium-238 at REDC at ORNL.
The Preferred Alternative also addressed the future of FFTF. While
the Department recognizes that this facility has unique capabilities,
the Preferred Alternative noted the absence of commitments from other
agencies, the private sector or other governments that would clearly
justify restarting the facility, and accordingly proposed to
permanently deactivate FFTF.
In the absence of commitments that would justify the restart of
FFTF or the construction of new facilities as proposed under
Alternatives 3 and 4, the Department anticipates that its current
infrastructure will serve the needs of the research and isotope
communities for the next 5-10 years. In particular, DOE will consider
opportunities to enhance its effort to provide medical and research
isotopes. If significantly larger amounts of isotopes are required in
the future, the Department would rely on the private sector to fulfill
these needs.
As a potential option for the longer-term future, the Department
proposes to work over the next 2 years to establish a conceptual design
for an Advanced Accelerator Applications (AAA) facility. Such a
facility, which would be used to evaluate spent fuel transmutation,
conduct various nuclear research missions, and ensure a viable backup
technology for the production of tritium for national security
purposes, was proposed and initial work funded in the fiscal year 2001
Energy and Water Appropriation Act. If the Department proposes specific
enhancements of existing facilities or development of the AAA facility,
further NEPA review would be conducted.
V. Alternatives Considered But Dismissed
In developing a range of reasonable alternatives, the Department
examined the capabilities and available capacities of more than 40
candidate irradiation facilities and 30 processing facilities at
existing and planned nuclear research facilities (accelerators,
reactors, and processing hot cells) that could potentially be used to
support one or all of the isotope production and research missions.
Irradiation capabilities of existing government, university, and
commercial irradiation facilities were evaluated to determine whether
they could adequately support the nuclear
[[Page 7885]]
infrastructure missions. Some of the irradiation facilities were
dismissed from further evaluation because they lacked technical
capability or available capacity. Reasons for dismissal included lack
of availability, lack of steady-state neutrons, or insufficient power
levels to support steady-state neutron production. Facilities were
similarly dismissed if existing capacity was fully dedicated to
existing missions, or if use of existing capacity to support the NI
PEIS alternatives would impact existing missions.
Numerous existing U.S. processing hot cell facilities possess the
capabilities and capacity to support the nuclear infrastructure. Given
this general availability, and to minimize transportation costs, only
existing processing facilities that are collocated at candidate
irradiation facility sites (i.e., ORNL, INEEL, and Hanford) were
evaluated in the NI PEIS. Although multiple processing facilities exist
at each of these sites, only the most suitable facilities in terms of
capability, capacity, and availability were given further
consideration.
VI. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The environmental impact analysis in the NI PEIS addressed resource
areas pertinent to the sites considered. Impacts were assessed for land
resources, noise, air quality, water resources, geology and soils,
ecological resources, cultural and paleontological resources,
socioeconomics, environmental justice, and waste management.
Radiological and nonradiological impacts to workers and the public that
could result from construction, normal operations, and accidents were
addressed. Environmental impacts of current, proposed, and reasonably
foreseeable activities at candidate sites were included in cumulative
impacts.
The only resource area that could be significantly impacted by the
implementation of any of the alternatives is water use associated with
the construction of new facilities. Because no specific site was
selected under Alternatives 3 and 4, potential impacts from
construction could not be fully evaluated. In the absence of new
construction, implementation of the alternatives would not
significantly affect water use.
The largest effect on air quality would also occur during
construction activities. Under operating conditions, for all
alternatives and options, air quality impacts would have been small in
comparison with the most stringent standards.
None of the alternatives would have had significant impact on
regional economic areas or community services at Hanford, INEEL, and
the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Socioeconomic impacts at the generic
sites could not be evaluated in detail because areas potentially
affected under Alternatives 3 and 4 could vary widely in demographic
and economic composition.
Maximum transportation impacts from normal operations for all
alternatives and options were calculated to be 0.21 latent cancer
fatalities for radiological risks and 0.008 fatalities for vehicle
emissions. Maximum impacts from transportation accidents were
calculated to be 0.53 latent cancer fatalities for radiological risks
and 0.19 fatalities for vehicle collisions. All calculated risks were
less than 1 fatality for the 35-year mission.
None of the alternatives at existing candidate sites would have had
a significant effect on land use, visual resources, noise, water
quality, geology and soils, ecology, cultural resources, and
environmental justice. Implementation of the alternatives at one or
more generic sites could potentially have resulted in significant
impacts in one or more of these resource areas.
The maximum amount of waste generated by waste type under any
alternative or option would have been 380 cubic meters of transuranic
waste; 5,200 cubic meters of low-level waste; 430 cubic meters of mixed
low-level waste; 3,300 cubic meters of hazardous waste; and 1.1 x
10-7 cubic meters of nonhazardous waste. The maximum amount
of spent nuclear fuel produced would have been 16 metric tons (heavy
metal). Hazardous waste generated under any of the alternatives or
combination of alternatives could have been managed under the
Department's existing waste management infrastructure. The
environmental evaluation provided in the NI PEIS assumed that
transuranic waste results from processing irradiated targets. The
Department will consider whether the waste that results from processing
irradiated neptunium-237 targets should be classified as high-level or
transuranic waste. Regardless of the classification, the physical
characteristics of the waste generated are the same and waste
management activities will be the same.
The maximum calculated radiological risk to the public from normal
facility operations for any alternative or option was 0.0039 latent
cancer fatalities. The maximum radiological risk to the public from
accidents was calculated at 0.54 latent cancer fatalities. The maximum
cancer risk from hazardous chemicals under normal operations was
calculated to be 2.6 x 10-7 and the maximum hazard index
was estimated to be 0.0064. All risks were found to be small and no
latent cancer fatalities would be expected to result from
implementation of the alternatives at any candidate site.
VII. The Environmentally Preferable Alternative
Environmental impacts, including human health and safety,
transportation, socioeconomics, and environmental justice, were
estimated to be small for all of the alternatives and did not provide a
reasonable basis for discriminating among alternatives. The No Action
Alternative and Alternative 5 were found to have the least
environmental impact, but neither of these alternatives would have
satisfied the Department's missions. Depending on the selected site,
new construction could involve previously undisturbed land with a
potential direct loss of wetlands and impacts on cultural and
paleontological resources, local employment and regional economic
conditions, and air quality.
VIII. Other Considerations
Public Input
Approximately 3,500 communications, some with multiple comments, on
the Draft NI PEIS were received via U.S. mail, e-mail, fax, and
telephone. During the 52-day comment period, DOE held seven hearings to
discuss the proposed action and to receive oral and written comments on
the Draft NI PEIS. These hearings were held at Oak Ridge, Tennessee;
Idaho Falls, Idaho; Hood River, Oregon; Portland, Oregon; Seattle,
Washington; Richland, Washington; and Arlington, Virginia. These
comments addressed a variety of topics and provided a wide range of
views. The general focus of these communications was: (1) Support for
deactivation of FFTF; (2) support for restarting FFTF; (3) concerns
that a compelling case for the purpose and need was lacking; (4)
concerns that restarting FFTF would hinder Hanford cleanup efforts and
would be a violation of the Hanford Tri-Party Agreement; and (5)
perceptions that production of plutonium-238 would violate U.S.
nonproliferation policies. Volume 3 of the NI PEIS provides the
Department's responses to these comments. Changes to the Draft NI PEIS
that resulted from comments received from the public are discussed in
Section 1.8 of the Final NI PEIS.
[[Page 7886]]
Costs
The costs of implementing each of the alternatives identified in
the NI PEIS are analyzed in the Department's cost study, Cost Report
for the Alternatives Presented in the Draft Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy
Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United
States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility, dated August
2000. Table 2 presents the range of costs for each of the NI PEIS
alternatives. The range of costs for a specific alternative reflects
cost differences between options. The FFTF restart implementation costs
were assessed with and without the cost for permanently deactivating
FFTF.
Nonproliferation Impacts
The Department's Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation
completed an assessment of the nuclear weapons nonproliferation impacts
for each of the alternatives. Results of this assessment are provided
in a report dated September 2000, Nuclear Infrastructure
Nonproliferation Impact Assessment for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian
Nuclear Energy Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions
in the United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility
(DOE/NE-0119). This assessment showed that none of the alternatives was
unacceptable from a nonproliferation point of view. Some of the
alternatives and options exhibit a more favorable nonproliferation
posture than others. The No Action Alternative and other alternative
options that incorporate neptunium-237 and plutonium-238 processing at
FDPF raised nonproliferation concerns related to supporting negotiation
of a verifiable Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) and the potential
for international monitoring. FDPF is currently excluded from
international monitoring for reasons of national security. Since it is
not known whether a Russian facility would be made available for
international monitoring, as a result of past and ongoing national
security programs at the facility, there is significant uncertainty as
to whether international monitoring would be permitted in a Russian Pu-
238 processing facility. In addition, the continued production of fresh
and recycled neptunium in the Russian nuclear program raises a
significant nonproliferation concern.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA01.001
IX. Comments on the Final NI PEIS
The Department received comments from about 130 individuals and/or
organizations after publication of the Final NI PEIS. Many of the
commentors opposed the selection of the Preferred Alternative.
Approximately 50 comments have been received that support the
restart of FFTF. These comments supported one or more missions,
including the production of medical isotopes and plutonium-238; stated
that deactivation of FFTF would take money away from Hanford's cleanup
mission; stated that the talented resource pool of personnel at Hanford
would be drained if FFTF were shut down; requested reconsideration of
permanent shutdown; protested the Preferred Alternative in favor of
FFTF restart; requested deferring the shutdown decision until the
incoming administration could consider it; and stated that the
selection of the Preferred Alternative was purely a political decision.
Several members of the Washington Congressional delegation wrote to
the Secretary suggesting that the Department had not given industry a
clear opportunity to propose use of the FFTF and advocated a formal
solicitation process before action was taken to deactivate the reactor.
Other comments that expressed opposition to, or concerns about FFTF
activation included the following:
Letters from national cancer patient organizations
(National Association of Cancer Patients and the Children's Cancer
Committee) appealing the decision to deactivate FFTF.
A letter from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission stating
Japanese concerns about the loss of FFTF.
A letter from NASA stating its interest in DOE maintaining
the capability to develop space reactor technology.
A letter from DuPont stating its interest in FFTF
operation to produce medical isotopes.
A letter from a law firm to the Secretary on behalf of
Benton County, Washington urging stating the Department to prepare a
supplemental PEIS prior to issuance of the Record for Decision.
About 20 comments were received that supported the permanent
deactivation of FFTF, stating that it was the right decision for
economic, safety, and environmental reasons.
[[Page 7887]]
Other comments received on the Final NI PEIS include the following:
One commentor stated that the Final NI PEIS was biased
toward the accelerator alternative (as addressed in the Preferred
Alternative).
One commentor stated that the Department did not request
the commitments that would justify restart of FFTF or construction of
new facilities that were addressed in the Preferred Alternative.
One commentor stated that the production of plutonium-238
was not consistent with United States and international policy
concerning nonproliferation.
Mr. Tom Clements of the Nuclear Control Institute reported
that his letter of September 18, 2000 was not included in the NI PEIS
Comment Response Document, Volume 3. The Department regrets this
oversight and provided Mr. Clements written responses to his comments
in a letter dated January 5, 2001. Both Mr. Clements' letter and the
Department's response were considered in the preparation of this Record
of Decision.
The Department considered these comments during the preparation of
the Record of Decision. The Department believes that the NI PEIS is
adequate for this decision and that no supplement is necessary. The
Department recognizes that significant uncertainties remain regarding
the future of research and isotope production activities that could
justify operation of the FFTF. However, the Department believes that
its current infrastructure will serve the needs of the research and
isotope communities for the next 5 to 10 years and that opportunities
to enhance its existing facilities are available. Although the
Department did weigh comments received on the Final PEIS, it does not
view these as being significantly different than those received on the
Draft PEIS and therefore did not change its views as described in the
Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS.
X. Decision
The Department has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative
identified in Section 2.8 of the Final NI PEIS (Alternative 2, Option
7) and if required, part of the No Action Alternative that includes
purchasing plutonium-238 from Russia. While it is clear from the
analysis in the NI PEIS that FFTF has unique capabilities and could
accomplish many of the irradiation missions of the Department, it is
also clear that the Department would need to make a long-term
commitment to its operation. The Department has not received
commitments to support these costs or mitigate the costs of building
new facilities. Given that existing facilities can meet DOE's near-term
needs for isotope production and research, the Department believes that
it should invest its funds in enhancing its existing infrastructure and
exploring the potential of a new Advanced Accelerator Applications
facility as a long-term option to meet U.S. research needs. It is for
these reasons that DOE has chosen to proceed with the Preferred
Alternative.
Domestic production of plutonium-238 will be reestablished to
support U.S. space exploration. The Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) in
Idaho and the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) in Tennessee will be
used to irradiate neptunium-237 targets for the production of
plutonium-238. Plutonium-238 production can be accomplished without
interfering with the existing primary missions at ATR and HFIR. The
Radiochemical Engineering Development Center (REDC) in Tennessee will
be used for fabricating targets and processing irradiated targets to
recover plutonium-238. These existing operating facilities were
selected because of the Department's confidence in the facilities' cost
estimates, technical capabilities, and consistency with existing onsite
target irradiation and processing activities. Three irradiation
facilities were evaluated for Alternative 2. CWLR options were not
selected because of uncertainties in the target design, development and
fabrication. The design and fabrication technology of neptunium-237
targets for irradiation in ATR and HFIR is much more mature. While ATR
alone could meet the plutonium-238 production requirements, the
Department selected the HFIR and ATR irradiation option because it
offers additional diversity and flexibility in meeting the production
goals and reducing potential impacts on future HFIR and ATR missions.
Three processing facilities were evaluated for Alternative 2. REDC was
selected as the preferred processing facility because of the facility's
experience base (30 years of target fabrication and processing
experience); current technical staff knowledge base, experience, and
testing in support of DOE-funded plutonium-238 production studies and
analyses; and the Department's confidence in the facility modification
requirements and operating cost estimates. If the Department's existing
inventory of plutonium-238 is insufficient to meet near-term space
mission requirements, then the Department will pursue purchasing
plutonium-238 from Russia while reestablishing domestic production
capabilities.
The Department anticipates that its current infrastructure will
serve the needs of the research and isotope communities for the next 5
to 10 years. The Department will continue to evaluate the medical and
research isotope needs and will propose appropriate actions to meet
these needs, as necessary. If significantly larger amounts of isotopes
are required in the future, others would need to respond to these
requirements.
To explore a potential option to address some future research
infrastructure needs, the Department intends to work over the next two
years to establish a conceptual design for an Advanced Accelerator
Applications (AAA) facility. Such a facility was proposed and initial
work funded in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations
Act. This facility would be used to evaluate spent nuclear fuel
transmutation, conduct various nuclear research missions, and ensure a
viable backup technology for the production of tritium for national
security purposes. If the Department proposes specific enhancements of
existing facilities or deployment of an AAA facility, further NEPA
review will be conducted.
XI. Mitigation
As discussed in the NI PEIS, implementation of any of the
alternatives would have had small environmental impacts and no
mitigation actions specific to the implementation of the alternatives
were identified. The Department's policy is to maintain exposure of
workers and the public to radiological and nonradiological emissions to
levels that are as low as is reasonably achievable. The Department has
adopted stringent controls for minimizing occupational and public
exposure to radiological and nonradiological emissions. These measures
will avoid, reduce, or eliminate adverse or potentially adverse impacts
from activities undertaken as a result of this decision. In
implementing this decision, the Department will use all practicable
means to avoid or minimize environmental harm. In addition, the
Department's policy is to minimize waste generation.
Issued in Washington, D.C., this 19th day of January 2001.
Bill Richardson,
Secretary of Energy.
[FR Doc. 01-2271 Filed 1-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P