[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35140-35142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16603]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.Hoy@science.doe.gov.
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
