Record of Decision for the Construction and Operation of the Spallation Neutron Source

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision for the Construction and Operation of the

Spallation Neutron Source

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this Record of

Decision (ROD) regarding DOE's proposal to construct and operate the

Spallation Neutron Source (SNS). DOE has decided to proceed with

construction and operation of a state-of-the-art Spallation Neutron

Source facility at the preferred location, the Oak Ridge National

Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This decision is based on the

analysis contained in the ``Final Environmental Impact Statement for

the Construction and Operation of the Spallation Neutron Source'' (SNS

FEIS, DOE/EIS-0247, April 23, 1999).

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Final EIS and this ROD should be

directed to: Mr. David Wilfert, EIS Document Manager, U.S. Department

of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations Office, 200 Administration Road, 146/

SNS, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Alternately, Mr. Wilfert may be contacted by

telephone at (800) 927-9964, by fax at (423) 576-4542, or by email at

[email protected]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the

Spallation Neutron Source, contact: Mr. Jeff Hoy, SNS Program Manager,

Office of Basic Energy Sciences (SC-13), Germantown, MD 20874-1290,

telephone: (301) 903-4924, fax: (301) 903-9513, or email:

Jeff.H[email protected].

For general information on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) process, contact: Ms. Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA

Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, telephone: (202) 586-

4600, fax: (202) 586-7031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) issued a Notice of Availability for DOE's Final Environmental

Impact Statement on the Construction and Operation of the Spallation

Neutron Source (Final EIS, DOE/EIS-0247) on April 23, 1999, (64 FR

19999). In the Final EIS, DOE considered the potential environmental

impacts of its proposed action, the construction and operation of the

SNS at four alternative sites: Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL),

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Argonne National Laboratory

(ANL), and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). The Department

identified Oak Ridge as its preferred alternative site. DOE also

considered a no action alternative under which the SNS would not be

built. DOE has considered all of the comments it received during the

public comment period. The Final EIS analyzed environmental impacts

over the projected life of the facility, both operating at an initial

power level of 1 megawatt (MW) and at the maximum potential upgrade

power level of 4 MW.

Background

Scientific discoveries and the new technologies derived from

neutron scattering research have contributed significantly to the

development of new products in the international marketplace, such as:

better magnetic materials for information storage media and for

electric generators and motors; improved engine parts; better

lubricants; strong, but light-weight structural materials; durable

plastics; metallic glasses; semiconductors; adhesives; improved

detergents; and new drugs. Neutron research and the associated

scientific, engineering, and technological advances provide the

catalyst for the development of commercial applications and support

U.S. economic progress and competitiveness among the industrialized

nations of the world. Construction of a next-generation spallation

neutron source in the U.S. will provide a competitive edge for the

nation in the physical, chemical, materials, biological, and medical

sciences.

The U.S. needs a high-flux, short-pulsed neutron source to provide

its scientific and industrial research communities with a much more

intense source of pulsed neutrons for neutron scattering research than

is currently available. The neutron science community has long

recognized the need for both high-intensity, pulsed (accelerator-based)

neutron sources and continuous (reactor-based) neutron sources. There

are approximately 20 major neutron sources worldwide that produce

neutron beams for materials research. The Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD) Neutron Science Working Group has

identified a growing disparity between the worldwide need for neutron

scattering research and the availability of facilities. The OECD

Working Group estimated that as the oldest neutron sources continue to

age, only about one-third of the present sources would remain available

by 2010. For nearly a decade, the research community has regarded U.S.

facilities as inferior to the newer and more extensively upgraded

foreign facilities. The current generation of neutron sources in the

United States has lower neutron beam intensities, lower operating

powers, and less advanced measuring instruments, when compared to the

current ``state-of-the-science'' (currently technologically feasible

and desirable). Thus, next-generation neutron sources are needed not

only to create new scientific and engineering opportunities, but also

to replace out-dated capacity. Access to European and Japanese neutron

sources by U.S. researchers and manufacturers is difficult, unreliable,

and costly. The logistics of scheduling time and configuring

instrumentation to conduct specialized experiments are prohibitive

because of the commuting distances to these facilities. In addition,

given the proprietary nature of much of the research desired by U.S.

industry, its research cannot be carried out at foreign facilities. A 1

MW state-of-the-art facility like SNS would produce pulses five times

more intense than the best spallation source in operation today, the

ISIS facility in Great Britain.

Alternatives Considered and Evaluated

In the Final EIS, DOE proposed to construct and operate the SNS.

DOE evaluated five alternatives for this proposed action:

1. Construct and operate the SNS at ORNL;

2. Construct and operate the SNS at LANL;

3. Construct and operate the SNS at ANL;

4. Construct and operate the SNS at BNL; and

5. No Action Alternative: Do not construct the SNS. The United

States would continue to use existing neutron science facilities.

[[Page 35141]]

The Preferred Alternative

The Department's preferred alternative is to construct and operate

the SNS at ORNL.

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Evaluated

As demonstrated in the Final EIS, the construction and operation of

the SNS is not expected to result in any unacceptable environmental

consequences at any of the four candidate sites, though each site does

have its own unique adverse environmental aspects. Of the alternative

sites, ORNL has the fewest negative impacts. The SNS site at ORNL is

adjacent to the Walker Branch Watershed, an environmental research

area, and has the potential to degrade some data collection for ongoing

atmospheric research by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration/Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Division (NOAA/

ATDD) and ecological research by the ORNL Environmental Sciences

Division. Some of these long-term environmental monitoring programs are

important to our understanding of gradual global changes, like global

warming, occurring in the atmosphere. SNS design features are available

to mitigate these impacts; therefore, the SNS Project shall work with

the research organizations (NOAA/ATDD and the ORNL Environmental

Sciences Division) to identify and implement options to reduce or

eliminate those negative impacts. This includes, but is not limited to,

options identified in the Final EIS, e.g., sizing and location of

cooling towers, waste heat recovery to offset the burning of natural

gas, or the provision of alternative monitoring capability to the

Walker Branch Watershed researchers. By contrast, negative

environmental effects associated with the other three candidate sites

are not so easily ameliorated. At Los Alamos, drawing cooling water

from the sole-source aquifer could adversely impact the area water

table; perhaps causing local residents and the White Rock community to

increase their water well depth in order to sustain service.

Additionally, the electric power supply and distribution system on the

mesa would have to be upgraded to accommodate the added SNS load. At

Argonne, the limited size of the reservation will make the maximally

exposed individual closer to the radiological source term, and it

offers fewer opportunities to compensate for the wetlands destroyed

during construction of the SNS. At Brookhaven, the permeable soils and

shallow sole-source aquifer would require significant and costly design

features to mitigate the potential for degradation of the drinking

water due to migration of activated soils.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The ``no action'' alternative has the least local adverse

environmental impact on the sites analyzed; however, it may have

greater long-term negative impact on the environment as a whole by

depriving the country of future neutron science-based technology that

might reduce other negative environmental impacts, e.g., lost fuel

efficiency gains in vehicles, less efficient chemical processes,

greater power transmission losses, etc. Neutron scattering science has

provided many advanced materials, which make possible or contribute to

improved quality of life, including protecting and improving the

environment. Specific areas with the most direct value to environmental

quality are: (1) Light-weight materials, (2) improved lubricants, (3)

high temperature superconductors, and (4) new catalysts. Light-weight

materials reduce motor vehicle and aircraft weight, thus reducing fuel

requirements and attendant combustion product emissions. Improved

lubricants reduce friction losses and wear in machinery, thus reducing

the manufacture of replacements, and improving emissions performance

during operation. High temperature superconductors allow improved

energy efficiency in some devices and offer the possibility for more

efficient power transmission, thus reducing energy production demands.

Finally, catalysts have played a major role in pollution control

devices (such as automobile catalytic converters), and neutron

scattering is an important tool used in developing new catalysts. Thus,

neutron based technology has historically been a benefit to the

environment, and the SNS may well result in fewer environmental impacts

than the no action alternative.

Construction and operation at any of the four alternative sites

does have its own unique adverse environmental impact at the specific

location. Of the action alternatives, the environmentally preferable

site for the SNS is the ORNL reservation because it offers relatively

minor impacts with comparatively easy and effective mitigation actions

which will be addressed in a Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) as discussed

later.

Review of the Final EIS

DOE distributed approximately 950 copies (200 full copies and 750

copies of the summary) of the Final EIS to members of Congress;

Federal, State, and local government offices; Native American

organizations; stakeholders; and public reading rooms. In addition, the

document is available on the World Wide Web at the Environment, Safety

and Health home page, http://nepa.eh.doe.gov/eis/eis0247/eis0247.html.

The U.S. Department of the Interior provided comments on the Draft

EIS that were inadvertently omitted from the Final EIS. Generic

concerns focused on protection of ground and surface water, and on

continued and expanded project participation in consultation and

permitting processes; and site-specific comments were offered for each

candidate site. In a subsequent response letter, DOE agreed to address

these comments in the selected alternative's MAP.

EPA provided comments on the Final EIS, indicating no objection to

DOE proceeding with detailed design and site evaluation. However, EPA

states that if these activities produce significant new information or

adverse environmental impact, then DOE would prepare a supplemental

EIS. EPA also identified groundwater concerns at ANL related to

drinking water wells. Lastly, EPA provided comments regarding air

quality modeling that would need to be addressed in the next phase of

the project regardless of which site was selected.

Decision

DOE will proceed with the proposed action to construct and operate

the SNS at the preferred location on the ORNL reservation.

Basis for Decision

The decision to proceed with construction and operation of the SNS

is based on the significant scientific and economic benefits expected

to be derived from the facility and the minimal environmental

consequences associated with its construction and operation. Selection

of the ORNL reservation as the site for the SNS is based on

environmental and programmatic factors. First, while the environmental

consequences for construction and operation of the SNS are not severe

at any of the candidate locations, the ORNL reservation affords the

combination of minimal impact and easiest mitigation for those

consequences that do occur. A modest amount of wetland (0.23 acres)

will be disturbed when constructing the facility access road. However,

it is anticipated that the permitting process will not be complicated

due to DOE's ability to

[[Page 35142]]

implement compensatory action on the ORNL reservation. Periodic

degradation of the long-term environmental monitoring program on the

Walker Branch Watershed is undesirable, but engineering solutions to

reduce or eliminate those impacts are readily available.

Other Decision Factors

In addition to environmental factors, DOE considered the existing

infrastructure for neutron science, cost of construction, and community

support for the proposed action.

ORNL provides a unique and comprehensive set of scientific research

infrastructure that will function in synergy with the SNS facility. The

High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) has long been a dominant location for

thermal neutron scattering research; and that facility is currently

being upgraded to provide cold neutron research capability. The

combination of HFIR and SNS will provide the full spectrum of neutron

research tools at one laboratory, thus allowing scientists to optimize

on-site research during their time in Oak Ridge. ORNL maintains a staff

of world-class neutron scattering scientists continuing the base

neutron research programs initially developed at the laboratory in the

early 1950's. The current cadre of technicians supporting neutron

research at the HFIR will provide an experienced pool from which to

develop that same capability for the SNS facility as it is brought into

operation. In addition, ORNL also provides an important physical plant

infrastructure to support the SNS. This includes a large reservation

without significant adjoining population centers; ready availability of

utilities and services to support facility operation and waste stream

handling; and regional availability of a low-cost skilled labor pool

for construction and operation of the SNS.

Construction on the ORNL reservation would require the least

infrastructure upgrades and only minimal site specific environmental

mitigation measures. At Los Alamos, it would be necessary to upgrade

electric power supply and water supply/distribution systems to satisfy

the incremental SNS needs. At Argonne, the limited space would require

immediate restoration of an old Argonne waste burial ground, upgraded

facility safety systems to ensure adequate protection to residents

located very close to the facility, and extensive surface mitigation

actions to address wetlands, floodplains, and a major traffic pattern

disruption. At Brookhaven, close proximity of the sole-source aquifer

and the highly permeable soil would require design modifications to

ensure continuing separation of ground water from activated soil/

shielding around large portions of the facility. The construction cost

advantage at ORNL, due to lower upgrade and mitigation costs, could be

offset to some degree by the possible application of Tennessee state

sales and use taxes to the SNS construction project. Thus, based on

construction costs, the preferred site at ORNL is at least as

attractive as any of the alternative sites.

Tennessee State and local governments, as well as the local

community, have expressed broad support for locating the SNS at Oak

Ridge. Tennessee is actively demonstrating their support of neutron

science activities in Oak Ridge by building a guest user facility, the

Joint Institute for Neutron Science, on the ORNL reservation, and has

committed to developing a neutron science program at the University of

Tennessee in Knoxville.

Project Commitments and Mitigation Measures

The DOE shall use all practicable means to avoid or minimize

environmental harm from the construction and operation of the SNS and

will document specific steps to achieve this end in a Mitigation Action

Plan (MAP). The Department will monitor its progress against the MAP to

help ensure that it is properly implemented. Copies of the MAP will be

made available in the local public reading rooms for information.

With ORNL having been selected as the site for the SNS, DOE will

perform three-season surveys there to confirm the presence/absence of

threatened and endangered species and archeological investigations to

locate any historically sensitive areas. These studies will be

performed before major land disturbance begins. The Department will

fully assess any species or areas of concern that it identifies and

will act to mitigate any adverse impacts to the extent practicable in

compliance with governing regulatory agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and the State of Tennessee).

Construction of the SNS on the ORNL reservation will result in

damage or destruction of three small [a total of 0.23 acres (0.09 ha)]

wetland areas to accommodate the facility access road. As conventional

facility design evolves, the amount of impacted wetland shall be held

to a minimum. During construction, DOE will comply with the

requirements of the appropriate regulatory authority (the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers or the State of Tennessee) with respect to the

affected wetlands. The Department will use runoff and siting controls

during construction to restrict unnecessary damage to remaining wetland

areas.

As changes evolve in facility design or as facility upgrade actions

are proposed, the DOE shall revisit requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to ensure continued compliance by the

SNS.

Issued in Washington, D.C. this 18th day of June, 1999.

Bill Richardson,

Secretary of Energy.

[FR Doc. 99-16603 Filed 6-29-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P