RE: TVA Tritium Production -Reply -Reply

[Jim Hardeman <Jim_Hardeman@mail.dnr.state.ga.us>]

Joelle --

Glad to hear your comments.  Georgia is in a
unique situation in that whichever technology DOE
chooses will affect us. If DOE chooses the
accelerator, we will have to deal with the
environmental and emergency response concerns
related to its location at SRS, right across the
GA/SC border (450 MW electricity requirement,
tritium releases, etc.). If, however, DOE chooses the
commercial reactor route, it appears that the
irradiated target shipments will follow the I-75 / I-285
/ I-20 route to SRS, regardless of the reactor(s)
used.  Not a major concern radiologically (~400 kCi
tritium, ~5 kCi Co-60 per target assembly) but
perhaps a major concern from either a public
relations or political perspective.

We are not in a position at this time to favor one
method of tritium production over the other, but I'm
certain that we will be "fully engaged" either way the
decision goes this fall.

General disclaimers apply.

Jim Hardeman, Manager
Environmental Radiation Program
Environmental Protection Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
4244 International Parkway, Suite 114
Atlanta, GA 30354
(404) 362-2675  fax: (404) 362-2653
Jim_Hardeman@mail.dnr.state.ga.us

>>> Joelle Key <jkey@mail.state.tn.us> 03/18/98
12:38 >>>

It will really depend on location.  If the Alabama site
is chosen, the local support promises to be
considerable.  If either of the Tennessee sites are
chosen, there may be more of a negative response,
but still, Tennessee tends to be supportive of its
nuclear power plants.  It appears that TVA
may be the best choice for this project for more
reasons than just the fact that it is a federal agency.

General disclaimer about how this is just my
opinion.

Joelle Key
TN - DRH
jkey@mail.state.tn.us