Production of Tritium in Commercial Light Water Reactors, 40685-40689 [2016-14775]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2016 / Notices
Respondents/Affected Public:
Individuals or Households.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 254,800.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Burden Hours: 127,400.
Abstract: The Discharge Application:
Total and Permanent Disability serves as
the means by which an individual who
is totally and permanently disabled, as
defined in section 437(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended,
applies for discharge of his or her Direct
Loan, FFEL, or Perkins loan program
loans, or TEACH Grant service
obligation. The form collects the
information that is needed by the U.S.
Department of Education (the
Department) to determine the
individual’s eligibility for discharge
based on total and permanent disability.
The Total and Permanent Disability
Discharge: Post-Discharge Monitoring
form serves as the means by which an
individual who has received a total and
permanent disability discharge provides
the Department with information about
his or her annual earnings from
employment during the 3-year postdischarge monitoring period that begins
on the date of discharge. The Total and
Permanent Disability Discharge:
Applicant Representative Designation
form serves as the means by which an
applicant for a total and permanent
disability discharge may (1) designate a
representative to act on his or her behalf
in connection with the applicant’s
discharge request, (2) change a
previously designated representative, or
(3) revoke a previous designation of a
representative.
Dated: June 17, 2016.
Kate Mullan,
Acting Director, Information Collection
Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy
Officer, Office of Management.
[FR Doc. 2016–14826 Filed 6–21–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Production of Tritium in Commercial
Light Water Reactors
National Nuclear Security
Administration, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
The National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA), a
separately organized agency within the
Department of Energy (DOE), is issuing
this Record of Decision (ROD) for the
Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement for the Production of
Tritium in a Commercial Light Water
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:02 Jun 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
Reactor (CLWR SEIS) (DOE/EIS–0288–
S1) issued on March 4, 2016.
NNSA prepared the CLWR SEIS to
update the environmental analyses in
the 1999 Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Production of Tritium
in a Commercial Light Water Reactor
(DOE/EIS–0288; the 1999 EIS). The
CLWR SEIS provides analysis of the
potential environmental impacts from
Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber
Rod (TPBAR) irradiation based on a
conservative estimate of the tritium
permeation rate through the TPBAR
cladding, NNSA’s revised estimate of
the maximum number of TPBARs
necessary to support the current and
projected future tritium supply
requirements, and a maximum
production scenario of irradiating no
more than a total of 5,000 TPBARs every
18 months.
NNSA has decided to implement the
Preferred Alternative, Alternative 6,
which allows for the irradiation of up to
a total of 5,000 TPBARs every 18
months using Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) reactors at both the
Watts Bar and Sequoyah sites. Although
near-term tritium requirements could
likely be met with the irradiation of
2,500 TPBARs every 18 months, this
decision provides the greatest flexibility
to meet potential future needs that
could arise from various plausible but
unexpected events. The exact number of
TPBARs to be irradiated during each/
any 18-month reactor core cycle will be
determined by both national security
requirements and TVA reactor
availability.
The CLWR SEIS analyses indicate that
there would not be any significant
increase in radiation exposure
associated with TPBAR irradiation for
facility workers or the public. For all
analyzed alternatives, estimated
radiation exposures would remain well
below regulatory limits. The calculated
estimated exposures for normal reactor
operations with even the maximum
number of TPBARs are comparable to
those for normal reactor operation
without TPBARs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information on the CLWR SEIS,
or this ROD, or to receive a copy of the
CLWR SEIS, contact: Mr. Curtis
Chambellan, CLWR SEIS Document
Manager, P.O. Box 5400, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87185–5400; 505–845–
5073; tritium.readiness.seis@
NNSA.DOE.GOV.
For information on the DOE National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process, contact: Ms. Carol M.
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA
Policy and Compliance (GC–54), U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40685
Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586–4600,
or leave a message at (800) 472–2756.
This ROD, the CLWR SEIS, and related
NEPA documents are available on the
DOE NEPA Web site at www.energy.gov/
nepa and on NNSA’s NEPA Web site at
https://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/
ouroperations/generalcounsel/
nepaoverview/nepa/tritiumseis.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NNSA is the lead Federal agency
responsible for maintaining and
enhancing the safety, security,
reliability, and performance of the
United States (U.S.) nuclear weapons
stockpile. Tritium, a radioactive isotope
of hydrogen, is an essential component
of every weapon in the U.S. nuclear
weapons stockpile and must be
replenished periodically due to its short
half-life.
In March 1999, DOE published the
1999 EIS, which addressed the
production of tritium in the TVA’s
Watts Bar and Sequoyah nuclear
reactors using TPBARs. The 1999 EIS
assessed the potential environmental
impacts of irradiating up to 3,400
TPBARs per reactor per fuel cycle (a
fuel cycle lasts about 18 months). On
May 14, 1999, DOE published the ROD
for the 1999 EIS (64 FR 26369) in which
it announced its decision to enter into
an agreement with TVA to produce
tritium in the Watts Bar Unit 1 reactor
(Watts Bar 1) in Rhea County,
Tennessee, near Spring City; and
Sequoyah Units 1 and 2 reactors
(Sequoyah 1 and 2) in Hamilton County,
Tennessee, near Soddy-Daisy. In 2002,
TVA received license amendments from
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) to produce tritium
in those reactors. Since 2003, TVA has
been producing tritium for NNSA by
irradiating TPBARs only in Watts Bar 1.
After irradiation, NNSA transports the
TPBARs to the Tritium Extraction
Facility at the DOE Savannah River Site
in South Carolina. NNSA’s Interagency
Agreement with TVA to irradiate
TPBARs is in effect until November 30,
2035.
During irradiation of TPBARs in a
reactor, a small amount of tritium
diffuses through the TPBAR cladding
into the reactor coolant; this is called
permeation. The 1999 EIS estimated that
the permeation rate of tritium through
the TPBAR cladding into the reactor
coolant system would be less than or
equal to 1 curie per TPBAR per year.
Based on tritium production experience
at Watts Bar 1, NNSA has determined
that tritium permeation through the
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
40686
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2016 / Notices
cladding is about three to four times
higher than this estimate; nevertheless,
tritium releases to the environment have
resulted in radiation exposures that are
well below regulatory limits. To put this
permeation rate into perspective, it
represents less than 0.1 percent of the
total tritium each TPBAR produces
during irradiation. NNSA has prepared
the CLWR SEIS to update the
information provided in the 1999 EIS to
include: (1) The analysis of the potential
environmental impacts from TPBAR
irradiation based on a conservative
estimate of the tritium permeation rate,
(2) NNSA’s revised estimate of the
maximum number of TPBARs necessary
to support the current and projected
future tritium supply requirements, and
(3) a maximum production scenario of
irradiating 5,000 TPBARs every 18
months, which NNSA might require as
a contingency capability.
Purpose and Need for Agency Action
U.S. strategic nuclear systems are
based on designs that use tritium gas.
Because tritium decays at a rate of about
5.5 percent per year (i.e., every 12.3
years one-half of the tritium has
decayed), periodic replacement is
required as long as the U. S. relies on
a nuclear deterrent. The nation,
therefore, requires a reliable source of
tritium to maintain its nuclear weapons
stockpile. Since completion of the 1999
EIS, the projected need for tritium has
decreased. Near-term tritium
requirements are more likely to be met
with the irradiation of 2,500 TPBARs,
but this does not exclude the possibility
that various potential future events
could necessitate increasing TPBAR
irradiation, including but not limited to
changes in the NNSA’s requirements for
tritium, or to compensate for a
prolonged reactor outage. In any event,
the exact number of TPBARs to be
irradiated will be determined by both
national security requirements and TVA
reactor availability, with no more than
a total of 5,000 TPBARs (no more than
2,500 TPBARs per reactor) irradiated
during an 18-month cycle, an amount
that does not exceed the scope of the
CLWR SEIS analysis, or the 1999 EIS.
Because NNSA continues to need
tritium for nuclear weapons, NNSA’s
purpose and need for the production of
tritium in CLWRs remains the same
today as described in the 1999 EIS.
However, current tritium requirements
are less than they were in 1999. The
observed higher-than-expected tritium
permeation rate has resulted in
precautionary limitations on the number
of TPBARs that the NRC has permitted
TVA to irradiate in its reactors.1 As a
result, TVA cannot currently irradiate
enough TPBARs in its reactors to meet
NNSA’s projected future tritium
production requirements. The CLWR
SEIS supplements applicable
environmental analyses in the 1999 EIS
to analyze and evaluate the potential
effects of the higher tritium permeation
to inform decisions related to producing
tritium quantities needed to meet
national security requirements.
Alternatives Considered
To supply tritium to meet stockpile
requirements, NNSA could potentially
use one or more of four TVA CLWR
units at the Watts Bar and Sequoyah
sites (two at each site). These include
the units evaluated in the 1999 EIS as
well as Watts Bar Unit 2 (Watts Bar 2)
which is currently coming online. The
SEIS evaluates the potential
environmental impacts from TPBAR
irradiation for seven alternatives:
The No-Action Alternative is based on
the analysis in the 1999 EIS, the Record
of Decision for the 1999 EIS, and
analyses for NRC license applications
and license amendment actions. The
1999 EIS estimated a maximum of 3,400
curies of tritium released from any
reactor in a given year. To stay within
this maximum 3,400 curies, the SEIS No
Action Alternative assumes a
conservative release of 5 curies for each
TPBAR annually, or a total of 680
TPBARs in any given reactor. This
means that the No-Action Alternative
assumes irradiation of up to a total of
2,040 TPBARs every 18 months using
the reactors identified in the 1999 ROD
(Watts Bar 1, Sequoyah 1, and Sequoyah
2) to keep permeation levels under
currently approved NRC license and
regulatory limits.
Alternative 1 assumes TVA would
irradiate up to a total of 2,500 TPBARs
every 18 months at the Watts Bar site
and would not irradiate TPBARs for
tritium production at the Sequoyah site.
Alternative 2 assumes TVA would
irradiate up to a total of 2,500 TPBARs
every 18 months at the Sequoyah site
and would not irradiate TPBARs for
tritium production at the Watts Bar site.
Alternative 3 assumes TVA would
irradiate up to a total of 2,500 TPBARs
every 18 months using both the Watts
Bar and Sequoyah sites. This would
provide NNSA and TVA the ability to
supply requirements using either site
independently or to use both sites, with
each supplying a portion of the
necessary tritium.
Alternative 4 assumes TVA would
irradiate up to a total of 5,000 TPBARs
every 18 months at the Watts Bar site
using Watts Bar 1 and 2. Because TVA
would irradiate a maximum of 2,500
TPBARs in any one reactor, this would
involve use of both Watts Bar reactors.
Under this alternative, TVA would not
irradiate TPBARs for tritium production
at the Sequoyah site.
Alternative 5 assumes TVA would
irradiate up to a total of 5,000 TPBARs
every 18 months at the Sequoyah site
using Sequoyah 1 and 2. Because TVA
would irradiate a maximum of 2,500
TPBARs in any one reactor, this would
involve use of both Sequoyah reactors.
Under this alternative, TVA would not
irradiate TPBARs for tritium production
at the Watts Bar site.
Alternative 6 assumes TVA would
irradiate up to a total of 5,000 TPBARs
every 18 months using both the Watts
Bar and Sequoyah sites. Because TVA
would irradiate a maximum of 2,500
TPBARs in any one reactor, this could
involve the use of one or both reactors
at each of the sites.
The following table summarizes these
alternatives and provides information
about the number of TPBARs analyzed
per site as well as the maximum number
of TPBARs that could be irradiated
every 18 months for each alternative.
The maximum number of TPBARs
analyzed in the CLWR SEIS for
irradiation in a single reactor (as
opposed to a single site) is 2,500
TPBARs per fuel cycle versus the 3,400
TPBARs analyzed in the 1999 EIS.
TRITIUM PRODUCTION ALTERNATIVES
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Alternatives
Site
No-Action
4
5
Watts bar
Reactor Units ....................................................................
Sequoyah
Watts bar
Sequoyah
Watts bar
Sequoyah
Watts bar
Sequoyah
Watts bar
Sequoyah
1 ...............
1 and 2 ....
1 and/or 2
1 and/or 2
1 and/or 2
1 and/or 2
1 and 2 ....
1 and 2 ....
1 and/or 2
1 and/or 2
1 Because of the higher-than-previously-expected
rate of permeation, TVA requested, and the NRC
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:02 Jun 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
1
2
3
approved, a reduction in the number of TPBARs
TVA can irradiate per fuel cycle.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
6
40687
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2016 / Notices
TRITIUM PRODUCTION ALTERNATIVES—Continued
Alternatives
Site
No-Action
4
5
Watts bar
Number of TPBARs analyzed per site ..............................
Sequoyah
Watts bar
Sequoyah
Watts bar
Sequoyah
Watts bar
Sequoyah
Watts bar
680 ...........
1,360 ........
2,500 ........
2,500 ........
1,250 ........
1,250 ........
5,000 ........
5,000 ........
2,500 ........
2,500 ........
2,500 ........
5,000 ........
5,000 ........
Maximum TPBARs irradiated every 18 months for alternative.
2,040
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
In the Notice of Intent to prepare the
CLWR SEIS (76 FR 60017; September
28, 2011), NNSA stated that it would
assess the impacts associated with
tritium production in CLWRs based on
a permeation rate of about 5 curies of
tritium per TPBAR per year. Although
the observed tritium permeation
through the cladding has been less than
5 curies of tritium per TPBAR per year,
the current permeation rate does not
take into account potential uncertainties
about operating cycle length, tritium
production per TPBAR, and future
operational changes that could occur at
the TVA reactors, all of which could
affect the permeation rate.
Given these potential uncertainties in
operational parameters, and after
consultation with TVA and the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (the
TPBAR design agency), NNSA decided
to evaluate an even higher and thus
more conservative tritium permeation
rate (10 curies of tritium per TPBAR per
year) in the CLWR SEIS instead of 5
curies of tritium per TPBAR per year.
NNSA, the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, and TVA have determined
that a tritium permeation rate of 10
curies of tritium per TPBAR per year is
the best estimate to ensure that the
analyses would reasonably be expected
to bound uncertainties in relation to
future operations. By analyzing this
higher tritium permeation rate, NNSA is
confident that the SEIS provides a
reasonable, but conservative and
bounding, analysis of the potential
environmental impacts from tritium
production in the Watts Bar and
Sequoyah reactors. In addition, the SEIS
includes a standalone analysis of the
potential impacts associated with a
permeation rate of 5 curies of tritium
per TPBAR per year for 2,500 TPBARs
per 18-month cycle at Watts Bar 1 to
provide the most realistic estimate of
the potential impacts.
Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative is the
alternative the agency believes would
ensure its ability to fulfill its statutory
mission, giving consideration to
environmental, economic, technical,
and other factors. In the Draft CLWR
SEIS, NNSA identified Alternative 1 as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:02 Jun 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
1
2
3
2,500
the Preferred Alternative. While, as
previously stated, the irradiation of
2,500 TPBARs every 18 months is likely
to meet near-term national security
requirements, NNSA has determined
that responsible planning needs to
incorporate the flexibility to address
potential future scenarios, including but
not limited to a change in tritium
production requirements or a prolonged
reactor outage. Such events could
require NNSA to increase the number of
TPBARs that must be irradiated in a
given 18-month period. To enable that
flexibility, NNSA designated Alternative
6 as the Preferred Alternative in the
Final SEIS, because that alternative
encompasses the full numerical range of
TPBARs that could, under any currently
foreseeable circumstances, be irradiated
in an 18-month period, at either or both
the Watts Bar and Sequoyah sites, to
satisfy national security requirements.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
After considering the potential
impacts to each resource area by
alternative, NNSA identified the NoAction Alternative as the
environmentally preferable alternative.
Under the No-Action Alternative, as
many as 680 TPBARs would be
irradiated every 18 months in each of
the following reactors: Watts Bar 1,
Sequoyah 1 and Sequoyah 2. If all three
reactors were used for tritium
production, a maximum of 2,040
TPBARs could be irradiated every 18
months. This is the lowest limiting
value considered for the total number of
TPBARs proposed to be irradiated under
any of the alternatives and consequently
would result in less potential
environmental impact.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
The CLWR SEIS analyzed the
potential impacts of each alternative on
land use, aesthetics, climate and air
quality, geology and soils, water
resources, biological resources, cultural
resources, infrastructure and utilities,
socioeconomics, and human health and
safety. The CLWR SEIS also analyzed
the potential environmental impacts of
each alternative that may result from
accidents and intentional destructive
acts, transportation, and those
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6
Sequoyah
2,500
5,000
associated with waste and spent nuclear
fuel management, and environmental
justice. The key SEIS findings are: (1)
Tritium releases from normal operations
with TPBAR irradiation would have an
insignificant impact on the health of
workers and the public; (2) tritium
releases from TPBAR irradiation would
increase tritium concentrations in the
Tennessee River in comparison with not
irradiating TPBARs; however, the
tritium concentration at any drinking
water intake would remain well below
the maximum permissible
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
drinking water limit of 20,000
picocuries per liter; (3) TPBAR
irradiation would not have a significant
adverse impact on the operation and
safety of TVA reactor facilities, and the
potential risks from accidents would
remain essentially the same whether
TPBARs were irradiated in a TVA
reactor or not; and (4) irradiation of
2,500 TPBARs in a single reactor would
increase spent nuclear fuel generation
by about 24 percent per fuel cycle and
irradiation of 5,000 TPBARs at a single
site would increase spent nuclear fuel
generation at either Watts Bar or
Sequoyah by about 48 percent per fuel
cycle; however, TVA has an
infrastructure in place and has a plan to
manage the increased volume of spent
nuclear fuel assemblies.
The potential environmental impacts
of each alternative are summarized for
comparison in the Summary and
Section 2.5 of the Final CLWR SEIS.
Summary Table S–2 and Final CLWR
SEIS Table 2–5 provide a summary of
potential environmental impacts
associated with the Preferred
Alternative as well as a means for
comparing the potential impacts of the
Preferred Alterative with each of the
analyzed alternatives.
Public Involvement
NNSA published a Notice of Intent to
prepare the CLWR SEIS in the Federal
Register (76 FR 60017) on September
28, 2011, to invite comments and
suggestions on the proposed scope of
the CLWR SEIS. NNSA requested public
comments by mail, facsimile, or email
by the close of the scoping period on
November 14, 2011. A public scoping
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
40688
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2016 / Notices
meeting took place on October 20, 2011,
in Athens, Tennessee. NNSA considered
all scoping comments it received in the
preparation of the Draft CLWR SEIS.
In August 2014, NNSA published the
Draft CLWR SEIS. The 45-day public
comment period on the Draft CLWR
SEIS began on August 8, 2014, and
ended on September 22, 2014. During
the comment period, public hearings
were held to allow the public to
comment on the Draft CLWR SEIS in
Athens, Tennessee, on September 9,
2014; and Chattanooga, Tennessee, on
September 10, 2014. In addition, NNSA
accepted public comments via mail,
email, and facsimile. NNSA considered
all comments received in the
preparation of the Final CLWR SEIS.
Comments on the Final CLWR SEIS
NNSA distributed the Final CLWR
SEIS to Congressional members and
committees; State and local
governments; other Federal agencies,
culturally affiliated American Indian
tribal governments, non-governmental
organizations, and other stakeholders
including members of the public who
requested the document. Also, the Final
CLWR SEIS was made available via the
DOE and NNSA Web sites. On March 4,
2016, EPA issued the notice of
availability (NOA) for the Final CLWR
SEIS (81 FR 11557). During the 30 days
following publication of the NOA,
NNSA received one comment letter
from the EPA, dated April 4, 2016. The
Appendix to this ROD identifies the
comments contained in that letter and
provides NNSA’s responses. NNSA has
concluded that those comments do not
identify a need for further NEPA
analysis.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Decision
NNSA has decided to implement the
Preferred Alternative, Alternative 6,
which allows for the irradiation of a
total of 5,000 TPBARs every 18 months
using both the Watts Bar and Sequoyah
sites. Because TVA could irradiate a
maximum of 2,500 TPBARs in any one
reactor, one or both reactors at each of
the sites could be used. For the analyses
in the SEIS, NNSA assumed for
Alternative 6 that each site would
irradiate 2,500 TPBARs every 18
months. However, because the SEIS
analyzes the impacts of irradiating up to
5,000 TPBARs at a single site,
Alternative 6 is not intended to limit the
number of TPBARs irradiated at either
the Watts Bar or Sequoyah site, so long
as no more than a total of 5,000 TPBARs
is irradiated every 18 months, with no
more than 2,500 TPBARs in any reactor
core.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:02 Jun 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
Basis for Decision
The 1999 EIS discusses NNSA’s
purpose and need to produce tritium by
irradiating TPBARS in one or more
CLWRs. That purpose and need remains
unchanged and is the foundation for the
decision announced in this ROD. In
making its decision, NNSA considered
potential environmental impacts of
operations and activities, current and
future mission needs and compatibility,
TVA missions and reactor licensing
considerations, technical and security
considerations, availability of resources,
and public comments on the CLWR
SEIS.
The selection of Alternative 6 is based
primarily on the increased flexibility
that it affords to deal with currently
unanticipated circumstances. With
respect to potential human health and
safety impacts, although irradiation of
up to a maximum total of 5,000 TPBARs
in an 18-month period will increase
potential doses to workers and the
public, all doses will be well within
regulatory limits. The potential use of
both the Watts Bar and Sequoyah sites
provides both NNSA and TVA the
greatest flexibility to meet future tritium
production requirements, something the
other alternatives do not provide. That
is especially true now that four reactors
(i.e., the addition of Watts Bar 2) are
potentially available to assist in meeting
national security requirements.
Mitigation Measures
To mitigate potential impacts from
tritium releases, TVA would construct
and operate a 500,000-gallon tritiated
water tank system at Sequoyah in the
event of a decision to irradiate TPBARs
at that site or to facilitate routine tritium
management. This system would be
similar to that at the Watts Bar site. TVA
would use the Watts Bar and Sequoyah
tank systems to store tritiated water after
it passed through the liquid radioactive
waste processing system. TVA would
release the stored tritiated water to the
Tennessee River by the existing
pathways. The tank systems that TVA
currently has in place at the Watts Bar
site and would potentially have in place
at the Sequoyah site would have
sufficient capacity to store and release
the water to the Tennessee River at
appropriate times (that is, TVA will
release stored tritiated water from the
tank during times of higher river flows
for better dilution), and it will enable
TVA to minimize the potential impacts
of tritiated water releases. The systems
would enable TVA to plan fewer
releases each year and to ensure that site
effluents would continue to remain well
below regulatory concentration limits.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Additionally, TVA will continue to
monitor its operations for emissions to
air and water in accordance with its
NRC licensing requirements. Lastly,
NNSA is continuing TPBAR research
efforts, with the goal to reduce tritium
permeation into the reactor coolant.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 15th day of
June, 2016.
Frank G. Klotz,
Under Secretary for Nuclear Security,
Administrator, National Nuclear Security
Administration.
Appendix: Comments Received on the
Final CLWR SEIS
NNSA received one comment letter on the
Final CLWR SEIS. That letter, from the EPA
dated April 4, 2016, contained comments on
three topics which NNSA is addressing in
this Appendix to the ROD.
The first EPA comment was a
recommendation that radiological and
effluent monitoring should continue as the
Project progresses. NNSA and TVA agree
with this recommendation and note that TVA
will continue to monitor its operations for
emissions to air and water in accordance
with its NRC licensing requirements.
The second EPA comment was a
recommendation that the Project Team
continue to work closely with any affected
communities, regulatory agencies, and other
stakeholders as the Project progresses. The
EPA specifically identified radiological and
effluent monitoring, as well as spent nuclear
fuel management, as issues relevant to such
coordination. In response to this comment,
the NNSA and TVA reiterate their
commitment to closely coordinate with any
potentially affected communities, regulatory
agencies, and other stakeholders as the
Project progresses. Notifications of notable
Project activities will be posted on both TVA
and NNSA public information Web sites, as
appropriate, and all regulatory requirements
will be met in an open and transparent
manner. NNSA and TVA welcome public
involvement as the Project progresses.
The third EPA comment was a request that
the ROD further evaluate the potential
consequences of a breached holding tank
releasing water containing tritium to the
owner-controlled area and flowing to the
Tennessee River. Such a scenario is
addressed in the SEIS, in Section 1.6, with
the conclusion that the EPA drinking water
limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter would not
be exceeded at the nearest community
drinking water intake in the event of an
instantaneous release of the maximum
expected quantity of tritiated water in the
tank. That conclusion is based on the
assumption that the tritiated water would be
reasonably well-mixed into the river by the
time the flow reached the first community
system drinking water intake.
In that scenario, the impacts (doses from
drinking water consumption) on an annual
basis would be no different than currently
evaluated in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. In
addition, during the NRC 10 CFR 50.59
regulatory process for the tank system, TVA
analyzed the potential offsite dose that could
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2016 / Notices
result from the rupture of the tank and the
release of the entire contents of the tank to
the Tennessee River without any holdup or
dilution prior to entering the river. The
results of that analysis indicated that the
offsite dose due to liquid releases (water
ingestion, fish ingestion, and recreation)
would be less than 0.21 millirem. Airborne
offsite doses were calculated to be less than
1.5 millirem. These doses are well below all
regulatory limits.
Design features and safety systems for the
tritiated water tank system make such an
instantaneous release/rupture unlikely.
Specifically, the 500,000-gallon stainless
steel tritiated water storage tank is set within
a larger diameter open tank secondary
containment structure to provide full
capacity retention. A rain shield over the
open containment tank connects to the
primary tank above the usable level of the
tank, providing a pathway into the secondary
containment for all leaks on the side wall of
the primary tank. The primary tank also
includes an overflow line piped from beneath
a top bladder to a 1000-gallon overflow
storage tank located in the annulus between
the primary and secondary tanks to contain
overfills within the secondary tank. The
bottoms of the tanks are separated with a
mesh and any leakage between the two tank
bottoms is directed to an alarmed sump
inside the annulus area to provide leak
detection. Piping outside of the tank is run
inside a covered highway-rated concrete
trench lined with epoxy and provided with
a leak detection system.
[FR Doc. 2016–14775 Filed 6–21–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[OE Docket No. EA–421]
Application To Export Electric Energy;
ReEnergy Fort Fairfield LLC
Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of application.
AGENCY:
ReEnergy Fort Fairfield LLC
(Applicant or ReEnergy Fort Fairfield)
has applied for authority to transmit
electric energy from the United States to
Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the
Federal Power Act.
DATES: Comments, protests, or motions
to intervene must be submitted on or
before July 22, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments, protests,
motions to intervene, or requests for
more information should be addressed
to: Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE–20,
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0350. Because
of delays in handling conventional mail,
it is recommended that documents be
transmitted by overnight mail, by
electronic mail to Electricity.Exports@
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:02 Jun 21, 2016
Jkt 238001
hq.doe.gov, or by facsimile to 202–586–
8008.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Exports of
electricity from the United States to a
foreign country are regulated by the
Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to
sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the
Department of Energy Organization Act
(42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require
authorization under section 202(e) of
the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
824a(e)).
On May 12, 2016, DOE received an
application from ReEnergy Fort Fairfield
for authority to transmit electric energy
from the United States to Canada from
its 37 megawatt (MW) capacity biomassfired electric generation facility located
in Fort Fairfield, Maine.
In its application, ReEnergy Fort
Fairfield states that it owns the 37 MW
capacity generation facility noted above.
ReEnergy Fort Fairfield proposes to
transmit the electric output across the
Emera Maine transmission system into
Canada, where the power is wheeled
through New Brunswick Power
Corporation’s (NBPC) transmission
system, and is transmitted back into the
United States over the international
electric transmission lines of Maine
Electric Power Company, Inc. (MEPCO)
to ISO–NE. ReEnergy Fort Fairfield will
use the same Emera Maine transmission
facilities previously authorized by
Presidential permits issued pursuant to
Executive Order 10485, as amended,
and are appropriate for open access
transmission by third parties.
Procedural Matters: Any person
desiring to be heard in this proceeding
should file a comment or protest to the
application at the address provided
above. Protests should be filed in
accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC)
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18
CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to
become a party to these proceedings
should file a motion to intervene at the
above address in accordance with FERC
Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies
of such comments, protests, or motions
to intervene should be sent to the
address provided above on or before the
date listed above.
Comments and other filings
concerning ReEnergy Fort Fairfield’s
application to export electric energy to
Canada should be clearly marked with
OE Docket No. EA–421. An additional
copy is to be provided directly to both
William Ralston, ReEnergy Fort
Fairfield LLC, 30 Century Hill Drive,
Suite 101, Latham, NY 12110 and to
Stephen C. Palmer, Esq., Alston & Bird
LLP, 950 F Street NW., Washington, DC
20004.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40689
A final decision will be made on this
application after the environmental
impacts have been evaluated pursuant
to DOE’s National Environmental Policy
Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR
part 1021) and after a determination is
made by DOE that the proposed action
will not have an adverse impact on the
sufficiency of supply or reliability of the
U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be
made available, upon request, for public
inspection and copying at the address
provided above, by accessing the
program Web site at https://energy.gov/
node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy
at Angela.Troy@hq.doe.gov.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 15,
2016.
Brian Mills,
Senior Planning Advisor, Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability.
[FR Doc. 2016–14771 Filed 6–21–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
International Energy Agency Meeting
Department of Energy.
Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
A meeting involving the
Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the
International Energy Agency (IEA) in
connection with the IEA’s Training
Session and Disruption Simulation
Exercise (ERE8) will be held at the
´
OECD Conference Centre, 2 Rue AndrePascal, 75016 Paris, France, on June 29–
30, 2016. The purpose of this notice is
to permit participation in ERE8 by U.S.
company members of the IAB.
DATES: June 29–30, 2016.
´
ADDRESSES: 2 Rue Andre-Pascal, 75016
Paris, France.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Reilly, Assistant General
Counsel for International and National
Security Programs, Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202–586–
5000.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i)
of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA),
the following notice of meetings is
provided:
The ERE8 sessions will be held from
9:00 a.m.–5:30 p.m. on June 29, 2016
and from 9:30 a.m.–4:45 p.m. on June
30, 2016. The purpose of ERE8 is to
train IEA Government delegates in the
use of IEA emergency response
procedures by reacting to a hypothetical
oil supply disruption scenario.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40685-40689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14775]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Production of Tritium in Commercial Light Water Reactors
AGENCY: National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a
separately organized agency within the Department of Energy (DOE), is
issuing this Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the Production of Tritium in a
Commercial Light Water Reactor (CLWR SEIS) (DOE/EIS-0288-S1) issued on
March 4, 2016.
NNSA prepared the CLWR SEIS to update the environmental analyses in
the 1999 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Production of
Tritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor (DOE/EIS-0288; the 1999
EIS). The CLWR SEIS provides analysis of the potential environmental
impacts from Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rod (TPBAR)
irradiation based on a conservative estimate of the tritium permeation
rate through the TPBAR cladding, NNSA's revised estimate of the maximum
number of TPBARs necessary to support the current and projected future
tritium supply requirements, and a maximum production scenario of
irradiating no more than a total of 5,000 TPBARs every 18 months.
NNSA has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative,
Alternative 6, which allows for the irradiation of up to a total of
5,000 TPBARs every 18 months using Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
reactors at both the Watts Bar and Sequoyah sites. Although near-term
tritium requirements could likely be met with the irradiation of 2,500
TPBARs every 18 months, this decision provides the greatest flexibility
to meet potential future needs that could arise from various plausible
but unexpected events. The exact number of TPBARs to be irradiated
during each/any 18-month reactor core cycle will be determined by both
national security requirements and TVA reactor availability.
The CLWR SEIS analyses indicate that there would not be any
significant increase in radiation exposure associated with TPBAR
irradiation for facility workers or the public. For all analyzed
alternatives, estimated radiation exposures would remain well below
regulatory limits. The calculated estimated exposures for normal
reactor operations with even the maximum number of TPBARs are
comparable to those for normal reactor operation without TPBARs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the CLWR
SEIS, or this ROD, or to receive a copy of the CLWR SEIS, contact: Mr.
Curtis Chambellan, CLWR SEIS Document Manager, P.O. Box 5400,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-5400; 505-845-5073;
tritium.readiness.seis@NNSA.DOE.GOV.
For information on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process, contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA
Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-4600, or leave
a message at (800) 472-2756. This ROD, the CLWR SEIS, and related NEPA
documents are available on the DOE NEPA Web site at www.energy.gov/nepa
and on NNSA's NEPA Web site at https://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ouroperations/generalcounsel/nepaoverview/nepa/tritiumseis.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NNSA is the lead Federal agency responsible for maintaining and
enhancing the safety, security, reliability, and performance of the
United States (U.S.) nuclear weapons stockpile. Tritium, a radioactive
isotope of hydrogen, is an essential component of every weapon in the
U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and must be replenished periodically due
to its short half-life.
In March 1999, DOE published the 1999 EIS, which addressed the
production of tritium in the TVA's Watts Bar and Sequoyah nuclear
reactors using TPBARs. The 1999 EIS assessed the potential
environmental impacts of irradiating up to 3,400 TPBARs per reactor per
fuel cycle (a fuel cycle lasts about 18 months). On May 14, 1999, DOE
published the ROD for the 1999 EIS (64 FR 26369) in which it announced
its decision to enter into an agreement with TVA to produce tritium in
the Watts Bar Unit 1 reactor (Watts Bar 1) in Rhea County, Tennessee,
near Spring City; and Sequoyah Units 1 and 2 reactors (Sequoyah 1 and
2) in Hamilton County, Tennessee, near Soddy-Daisy. In 2002, TVA
received license amendments from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) to produce tritium in those reactors. Since 2003, TVA has been
producing tritium for NNSA by irradiating TPBARs only in Watts Bar 1.
After irradiation, NNSA transports the TPBARs to the Tritium Extraction
Facility at the DOE Savannah River Site in South Carolina. NNSA's
Interagency Agreement with TVA to irradiate TPBARs is in effect until
November 30, 2035.
During irradiation of TPBARs in a reactor, a small amount of
tritium diffuses through the TPBAR cladding into the reactor coolant;
this is called permeation. The 1999 EIS estimated that the permeation
rate of tritium through the TPBAR cladding into the reactor coolant
system would be less than or equal to 1 curie per TPBAR per year. Based
on tritium production experience at Watts Bar 1, NNSA has determined
that tritium permeation through the
[[Page 40686]]
cladding is about three to four times higher than this estimate;
nevertheless, tritium releases to the environment have resulted in
radiation exposures that are well below regulatory limits. To put this
permeation rate into perspective, it represents less than 0.1 percent
of the total tritium each TPBAR produces during irradiation. NNSA has
prepared the CLWR SEIS to update the information provided in the 1999
EIS to include: (1) The analysis of the potential environmental impacts
from TPBAR irradiation based on a conservative estimate of the tritium
permeation rate, (2) NNSA's revised estimate of the maximum number of
TPBARs necessary to support the current and projected future tritium
supply requirements, and (3) a maximum production scenario of
irradiating 5,000 TPBARs every 18 months, which NNSA might require as a
contingency capability.
Purpose and Need for Agency Action
U.S. strategic nuclear systems are based on designs that use
tritium gas. Because tritium decays at a rate of about 5.5 percent per
year (i.e., every 12.3 years one-half of the tritium has decayed),
periodic replacement is required as long as the U. S. relies on a
nuclear deterrent. The nation, therefore, requires a reliable source of
tritium to maintain its nuclear weapons stockpile. Since completion of
the 1999 EIS, the projected need for tritium has decreased. Near-term
tritium requirements are more likely to be met with the irradiation of
2,500 TPBARs, but this does not exclude the possibility that various
potential future events could necessitate increasing TPBAR irradiation,
including but not limited to changes in the NNSA's requirements for
tritium, or to compensate for a prolonged reactor outage. In any event,
the exact number of TPBARs to be irradiated will be determined by both
national security requirements and TVA reactor availability, with no
more than a total of 5,000 TPBARs (no more than 2,500 TPBARs per
reactor) irradiated during an 18-month cycle, an amount that does not
exceed the scope of the CLWR SEIS analysis, or the 1999 EIS.
Because NNSA continues to need tritium for nuclear weapons, NNSA's
purpose and need for the production of tritium in CLWRs remains the
same today as described in the 1999 EIS. However, current tritium
requirements are less than they were in 1999. The observed higher-than-
expected tritium permeation rate has resulted in precautionary
limitations on the number of TPBARs that the NRC has permitted TVA to
irradiate in its reactors.\1\ As a result, TVA cannot currently
irradiate enough TPBARs in its reactors to meet NNSA's projected future
tritium production requirements. The CLWR SEIS supplements applicable
environmental analyses in the 1999 EIS to analyze and evaluate the
potential effects of the higher tritium permeation to inform decisions
related to producing tritium quantities needed to meet national
security requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Because of the higher-than-previously-expected rate of
permeation, TVA requested, and the NRC approved, a reduction in the
number of TPBARs TVA can irradiate per fuel cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives Considered
To supply tritium to meet stockpile requirements, NNSA could
potentially use one or more of four TVA CLWR units at the Watts Bar and
Sequoyah sites (two at each site). These include the units evaluated in
the 1999 EIS as well as Watts Bar Unit 2 (Watts Bar 2) which is
currently coming online. The SEIS evaluates the potential environmental
impacts from TPBAR irradiation for seven alternatives:
The No-Action Alternative is based on the analysis in the 1999 EIS,
the Record of Decision for the 1999 EIS, and analyses for NRC license
applications and license amendment actions. The 1999 EIS estimated a
maximum of 3,400 curies of tritium released from any reactor in a given
year. To stay within this maximum 3,400 curies, the SEIS No Action
Alternative assumes a conservative release of 5 curies for each TPBAR
annually, or a total of 680 TPBARs in any given reactor. This means
that the No-Action Alternative assumes irradiation of up to a total of
2,040 TPBARs every 18 months using the reactors identified in the 1999
ROD (Watts Bar 1, Sequoyah 1, and Sequoyah 2) to keep permeation levels
under currently approved NRC license and regulatory limits.
Alternative 1 assumes TVA would irradiate up to a total of 2,500
TPBARs every 18 months at the Watts Bar site and would not irradiate
TPBARs for tritium production at the Sequoyah site.
Alternative 2 assumes TVA would irradiate up to a total of 2,500
TPBARs every 18 months at the Sequoyah site and would not irradiate
TPBARs for tritium production at the Watts Bar site.
Alternative 3 assumes TVA would irradiate up to a total of 2,500
TPBARs every 18 months using both the Watts Bar and Sequoyah sites.
This would provide NNSA and TVA the ability to supply requirements
using either site independently or to use both sites, with each
supplying a portion of the necessary tritium.
Alternative 4 assumes TVA would irradiate up to a total of 5,000
TPBARs every 18 months at the Watts Bar site using Watts Bar 1 and 2.
Because TVA would irradiate a maximum of 2,500 TPBARs in any one
reactor, this would involve use of both Watts Bar reactors. Under this
alternative, TVA would not irradiate TPBARs for tritium production at
the Sequoyah site.
Alternative 5 assumes TVA would irradiate up to a total of 5,000
TPBARs every 18 months at the Sequoyah site using Sequoyah 1 and 2.
Because TVA would irradiate a maximum of 2,500 TPBARs in any one
reactor, this would involve use of both Sequoyah reactors. Under this
alternative, TVA would not irradiate TPBARs for tritium production at
the Watts Bar site.
Alternative 6 assumes TVA would irradiate up to a total of 5,000
TPBARs every 18 months using both the Watts Bar and Sequoyah sites.
Because TVA would irradiate a maximum of 2,500 TPBARs in any one
reactor, this could involve the use of one or both reactors at each of
the sites.
The following table summarizes these alternatives and provides
information about the number of TPBARs analyzed per site as well as the
maximum number of TPBARs that could be irradiated every 18 months for
each alternative. The maximum number of TPBARs analyzed in the CLWR
SEIS for irradiation in a single reactor (as opposed to a single site)
is 2,500 TPBARs per fuel cycle versus the 3,400 TPBARs analyzed in the
1999 EIS.
Tritium Production Alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site No-Action 1 2 3 4 5 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watts bar Sequoyah Watts bar Sequoyah Watts bar Sequoyah Watts bar Sequoyah Watts bar Sequoyah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reactor Units................ 1.......... 1 and 2.... 1 and/or 2. 1 and/or 2 1 and/or 2 1 and/or 2 1 and 2... 1 and 2... 1 and/or 2 1 and/or 2
[[Page 40687]]
Number of TPBARs analyzed per 680........ 1,360...... 2,500...... 2,500..... 1,250..... 1,250..... 5,000..... 5,000..... 2,500..... 2,500
site.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum TPBARs irradiated 2,040 2,500...... 2,500..... 2,500 5,000..... 5,000..... 5,000
every 18 months for
alternative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Notice of Intent to prepare the CLWR SEIS (76 FR 60017;
September 28, 2011), NNSA stated that it would assess the impacts
associated with tritium production in CLWRs based on a permeation rate
of about 5 curies of tritium per TPBAR per year. Although the observed
tritium permeation through the cladding has been less than 5 curies of
tritium per TPBAR per year, the current permeation rate does not take
into account potential uncertainties about operating cycle length,
tritium production per TPBAR, and future operational changes that could
occur at the TVA reactors, all of which could affect the permeation
rate.
Given these potential uncertainties in operational parameters, and
after consultation with TVA and the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (the TPBAR design agency), NNSA decided to evaluate an even
higher and thus more conservative tritium permeation rate (10 curies of
tritium per TPBAR per year) in the CLWR SEIS instead of 5 curies of
tritium per TPBAR per year. NNSA, the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, and TVA have determined that a tritium permeation rate of
10 curies of tritium per TPBAR per year is the best estimate to ensure
that the analyses would reasonably be expected to bound uncertainties
in relation to future operations. By analyzing this higher tritium
permeation rate, NNSA is confident that the SEIS provides a reasonable,
but conservative and bounding, analysis of the potential environmental
impacts from tritium production in the Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors.
In addition, the SEIS includes a standalone analysis of the potential
impacts associated with a permeation rate of 5 curies of tritium per
TPBAR per year for 2,500 TPBARs per 18-month cycle at Watts Bar 1 to
provide the most realistic estimate of the potential impacts.
Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative is the alternative the agency believes
would ensure its ability to fulfill its statutory mission, giving
consideration to environmental, economic, technical, and other factors.
In the Draft CLWR SEIS, NNSA identified Alternative 1 as the Preferred
Alternative. While, as previously stated, the irradiation of 2,500
TPBARs every 18 months is likely to meet near-term national security
requirements, NNSA has determined that responsible planning needs to
incorporate the flexibility to address potential future scenarios,
including but not limited to a change in tritium production
requirements or a prolonged reactor outage. Such events could require
NNSA to increase the number of TPBARs that must be irradiated in a
given 18-month period. To enable that flexibility, NNSA designated
Alternative 6 as the Preferred Alternative in the Final SEIS, because
that alternative encompasses the full numerical range of TPBARs that
could, under any currently foreseeable circumstances, be irradiated in
an 18-month period, at either or both the Watts Bar and Sequoyah sites,
to satisfy national security requirements.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
After considering the potential impacts to each resource area by
alternative, NNSA identified the No-Action Alternative as the
environmentally preferable alternative. Under the No-Action
Alternative, as many as 680 TPBARs would be irradiated every 18 months
in each of the following reactors: Watts Bar 1, Sequoyah 1 and Sequoyah
2. If all three reactors were used for tritium production, a maximum of
2,040 TPBARs could be irradiated every 18 months. This is the lowest
limiting value considered for the total number of TPBARs proposed to be
irradiated under any of the alternatives and consequently would result
in less potential environmental impact.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
The CLWR SEIS analyzed the potential impacts of each alternative on
land use, aesthetics, climate and air quality, geology and soils, water
resources, biological resources, cultural resources, infrastructure and
utilities, socioeconomics, and human health and safety. The CLWR SEIS
also analyzed the potential environmental impacts of each alternative
that may result from accidents and intentional destructive acts,
transportation, and those associated with waste and spent nuclear fuel
management, and environmental justice. The key SEIS findings are: (1)
Tritium releases from normal operations with TPBAR irradiation would
have an insignificant impact on the health of workers and the public;
(2) tritium releases from TPBAR irradiation would increase tritium
concentrations in the Tennessee River in comparison with not
irradiating TPBARs; however, the tritium concentration at any drinking
water intake would remain well below the maximum permissible
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water limit of 20,000
picocuries per liter; (3) TPBAR irradiation would not have a
significant adverse impact on the operation and safety of TVA reactor
facilities, and the potential risks from accidents would remain
essentially the same whether TPBARs were irradiated in a TVA reactor or
not; and (4) irradiation of 2,500 TPBARs in a single reactor would
increase spent nuclear fuel generation by about 24 percent per fuel
cycle and irradiation of 5,000 TPBARs at a single site would increase
spent nuclear fuel generation at either Watts Bar or Sequoyah by about
48 percent per fuel cycle; however, TVA has an infrastructure in place
and has a plan to manage the increased volume of spent nuclear fuel
assemblies.
The potential environmental impacts of each alternative are
summarized for comparison in the Summary and Section 2.5 of the Final
CLWR SEIS. Summary Table S-2 and Final CLWR SEIS Table 2-5 provide a
summary of potential environmental impacts associated with the
Preferred Alternative as well as a means for comparing the potential
impacts of the Preferred Alterative with each of the analyzed
alternatives.
Public Involvement
NNSA published a Notice of Intent to prepare the CLWR SEIS in the
Federal Register (76 FR 60017) on September 28, 2011, to invite
comments and suggestions on the proposed scope of the CLWR SEIS. NNSA
requested public comments by mail, facsimile, or email by the close of
the scoping period on November 14, 2011. A public scoping
[[Page 40688]]
meeting took place on October 20, 2011, in Athens, Tennessee. NNSA
considered all scoping comments it received in the preparation of the
Draft CLWR SEIS.
In August 2014, NNSA published the Draft CLWR SEIS. The 45-day
public comment period on the Draft CLWR SEIS began on August 8, 2014,
and ended on September 22, 2014. During the comment period, public
hearings were held to allow the public to comment on the Draft CLWR
SEIS in Athens, Tennessee, on September 9, 2014; and Chattanooga,
Tennessee, on September 10, 2014. In addition, NNSA accepted public
comments via mail, email, and facsimile. NNSA considered all comments
received in the preparation of the Final CLWR SEIS.
Comments on the Final CLWR SEIS
NNSA distributed the Final CLWR SEIS to Congressional members and
committees; State and local governments; other Federal agencies,
culturally affiliated American Indian tribal governments, non-
governmental organizations, and other stakeholders including members of
the public who requested the document. Also, the Final CLWR SEIS was
made available via the DOE and NNSA Web sites. On March 4, 2016, EPA
issued the notice of availability (NOA) for the Final CLWR SEIS (81 FR
11557). During the 30 days following publication of the NOA, NNSA
received one comment letter from the EPA, dated April 4, 2016. The
Appendix to this ROD identifies the comments contained in that letter
and provides NNSA's responses. NNSA has concluded that those comments
do not identify a need for further NEPA analysis.
Decision
NNSA has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative,
Alternative 6, which allows for the irradiation of a total of 5,000
TPBARs every 18 months using both the Watts Bar and Sequoyah sites.
Because TVA could irradiate a maximum of 2,500 TPBARs in any one
reactor, one or both reactors at each of the sites could be used. For
the analyses in the SEIS, NNSA assumed for Alternative 6 that each site
would irradiate 2,500 TPBARs every 18 months. However, because the SEIS
analyzes the impacts of irradiating up to 5,000 TPBARs at a single
site, Alternative 6 is not intended to limit the number of TPBARs
irradiated at either the Watts Bar or Sequoyah site, so long as no more
than a total of 5,000 TPBARs is irradiated every 18 months, with no
more than 2,500 TPBARs in any reactor core.
Basis for Decision
The 1999 EIS discusses NNSA's purpose and need to produce tritium
by irradiating TPBARS in one or more CLWRs. That purpose and need
remains unchanged and is the foundation for the decision announced in
this ROD. In making its decision, NNSA considered potential
environmental impacts of operations and activities, current and future
mission needs and compatibility, TVA missions and reactor licensing
considerations, technical and security considerations, availability of
resources, and public comments on the CLWR SEIS.
The selection of Alternative 6 is based primarily on the increased
flexibility that it affords to deal with currently unanticipated
circumstances. With respect to potential human health and safety
impacts, although irradiation of up to a maximum total of 5,000 TPBARs
in an 18-month period will increase potential doses to workers and the
public, all doses will be well within regulatory limits. The potential
use of both the Watts Bar and Sequoyah sites provides both NNSA and TVA
the greatest flexibility to meet future tritium production
requirements, something the other alternatives do not provide. That is
especially true now that four reactors (i.e., the addition of Watts Bar
2) are potentially available to assist in meeting national security
requirements.
Mitigation Measures
To mitigate potential impacts from tritium releases, TVA would
construct and operate a 500,000-gallon tritiated water tank system at
Sequoyah in the event of a decision to irradiate TPBARs at that site or
to facilitate routine tritium management. This system would be similar
to that at the Watts Bar site. TVA would use the Watts Bar and Sequoyah
tank systems to store tritiated water after it passed through the
liquid radioactive waste processing system. TVA would release the
stored tritiated water to the Tennessee River by the existing pathways.
The tank systems that TVA currently has in place at the Watts Bar site
and would potentially have in place at the Sequoyah site would have
sufficient capacity to store and release the water to the Tennessee
River at appropriate times (that is, TVA will release stored tritiated
water from the tank during times of higher river flows for better
dilution), and it will enable TVA to minimize the potential impacts of
tritiated water releases. The systems would enable TVA to plan fewer
releases each year and to ensure that site effluents would continue to
remain well below regulatory concentration limits. Additionally, TVA
will continue to monitor its operations for emissions to air and water
in accordance with its NRC licensing requirements. Lastly, NNSA is
continuing TPBAR research efforts, with the goal to reduce tritium
permeation into the reactor coolant.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 15th day of June, 2016.
Frank G. Klotz,
Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, Administrator, National Nuclear
Security Administration.
Appendix: Comments Received on the Final CLWR SEIS
NNSA received one comment letter on the Final CLWR SEIS. That
letter, from the EPA dated April 4, 2016, contained comments on
three topics which NNSA is addressing in this Appendix to the ROD.
The first EPA comment was a recommendation that radiological and
effluent monitoring should continue as the Project progresses. NNSA
and TVA agree with this recommendation and note that TVA will
continue to monitor its operations for emissions to air and water in
accordance with its NRC licensing requirements.
The second EPA comment was a recommendation that the Project
Team continue to work closely with any affected communities,
regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders as the Project
progresses. The EPA specifically identified radiological and
effluent monitoring, as well as spent nuclear fuel management, as
issues relevant to such coordination. In response to this comment,
the NNSA and TVA reiterate their commitment to closely coordinate
with any potentially affected communities, regulatory agencies, and
other stakeholders as the Project progresses. Notifications of
notable Project activities will be posted on both TVA and NNSA
public information Web sites, as appropriate, and all regulatory
requirements will be met in an open and transparent manner. NNSA and
TVA welcome public involvement as the Project progresses.
The third EPA comment was a request that the ROD further
evaluate the potential consequences of a breached holding tank
releasing water containing tritium to the owner-controlled area and
flowing to the Tennessee River. Such a scenario is addressed in the
SEIS, in Section 1.6, with the conclusion that the EPA drinking
water limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter would not be exceeded at
the nearest community drinking water intake in the event of an
instantaneous release of the maximum expected quantity of tritiated
water in the tank. That conclusion is based on the assumption that
the tritiated water would be reasonably well-mixed into the river by
the time the flow reached the first community system drinking water
intake.
In that scenario, the impacts (doses from drinking water
consumption) on an annual basis would be no different than currently
evaluated in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. In addition, during the NRC 10
CFR 50.59 regulatory process for the tank system, TVA analyzed the
potential offsite dose that could
[[Page 40689]]
result from the rupture of the tank and the release of the entire
contents of the tank to the Tennessee River without any holdup or
dilution prior to entering the river. The results of that analysis
indicated that the offsite dose due to liquid releases (water
ingestion, fish ingestion, and recreation) would be less than 0.21
millirem. Airborne offsite doses were calculated to be less than 1.5
millirem. These doses are well below all regulatory limits.
Design features and safety systems for the tritiated water tank
system make such an instantaneous release/rupture unlikely.
Specifically, the 500,000-gallon stainless steel tritiated water
storage tank is set within a larger diameter open tank secondary
containment structure to provide full capacity retention. A rain
shield over the open containment tank connects to the primary tank
above the usable level of the tank, providing a pathway into the
secondary containment for all leaks on the side wall of the primary
tank. The primary tank also includes an overflow line piped from
beneath a top bladder to a 1000-gallon overflow storage tank located
in the annulus between the primary and secondary tanks to contain
overfills within the secondary tank. The bottoms of the tanks are
separated with a mesh and any leakage between the two tank bottoms
is directed to an alarmed sump inside the annulus area to provide
leak detection. Piping outside of the tank is run inside a covered
highway-rated concrete trench lined with epoxy and provided with a
leak detection system.
[FR Doc. 2016-14775 Filed 6-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
