[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 22, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54777-54779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27013]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Proposed Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the M1
Breacher Life Cycle Environmental Assessment
AGENCY: U.S. Army Program Executive Office, Ground Combat & Support
Systems.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969 and Army Regulation 200-2, the proposed FONSI for the M1
Breacher is being published for comment. The U.S. Army Program
Executive Office, Ground Combat & Support Systems (PEO-GCSS) has
prepared a Life Cycle Environmental Assessment (LCEA) which examines
the potential impacts to the natural and human environment from the
proposed development of the Breacher as a combat vehicle that combines
capabilities to reduce both simple and complex obstacle systems into a
single armored vehicle chassis. Based on the LCEA, PEO-GCSS and the
Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) have determined the
proposed action is not a major Federal action significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment, within the meaning of NEPA.
Therefore the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not
required and the Army is issuing this proposed FONSI.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning the proposed
action should be directed to Mr. Brian Bonkosky, Program Executive
Office, Ground Combat & Support Systems, Breacher Product Manager's
Office, ATTN: SFAE-GCSS-CV-B, Warren, Michigan 48397-5000, telephone
number: (810) 574-7687, fax number: (810) 574-7822.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Note: PEO, GCSS absorbed the U.S. Army
Program Executive Office, Armored Systems Modernization (PEO, ASM) in
September 1996. The LCEA, upon which this FONSI is based, was conducted
within PEO, ASM. Organizational references within the LCEA to PEO, ASM
should be considered to be changed to PEO, GCSS.
Proposed Action
This LCEA examines the potential impacts to the natural and human
environment from the proposed development of the M1 Breacher as a
combat vehicle combining capabilities to reduce both simple and complex
obstacle systems into a single armored vehicle chassis. The Breacher
would meet the Army's Operational Requirements Document (ORD) specified
requirements for increased capability in a single armored vehicle based
on the M1 Abrams chassis. These requirements call for capability to
remove and destroy obstacles to troop and vehicular movement (such as
ditches, berms, barbed wire, and other natural or man-made obstacles).
The Breacher also provides countermine capability, as well as more
mobility and survivability than is currently available. In accordance
with the Army's combat maintenance emphasis on designing for discard,
Breacher combat components, to the maximum extent feasible, would be
designed for discard at failure in the field. However, in non-combat
situations, packaging, handling, and storage for transportation of
Breacher systems would include the consideration of such recycling and
pollution prevention measures as employing reusable containers and the
breakdown and recycling of discarded components.
[[Page 54778]]
Environmental Impacts
The Breacher vehicle life cycle includes design and manufacture,
transport of vehicles to test sites, testing, production vehicle
manufacturing, deployment and operations of production vehicles, and
eventual demilitarization. Potential environmental impacts of these
life cycle stages may include air, water, hazardous waste, noise,
biotic, and socioeconomic (social, economic, historical,
archaeological, and cultural) impacts at each of these life cycle
phases.
Constructing and assembling Breacher units involves working with a
variety of industrial processes and materials, and would involve the
generation of air emissions, wastewater discharges, and limited
quantities of solid and hazardous wastes at various facilities, which
in turn may result in impacts to air, water, biotic, and socioeconomic
resources at those facilities. Transport of assembled vehicles can
result in minor environmental impacts along the various transport
routes.
Breacher units would receive preliminary testing at the production
facilities and then be transported to a number of other Army facilities
for various stages of testing before deployment. Testing of the
Breacher would involve determining its transportability, performance
capabilities, and vulnerability/survivability to various combat
threats. Simulated field training and combat conditions would be
employed during this testing. Testing phase environmental impacts may
involve modest amounts of various emissions (particularly air
emissions) resulting from truck and rail transport between the
production facilities and the testing facilities. These emissions could
result in modest impacts to air, water, biotic, and socioeconomic
resources along the travel routes. Testing of the Breacher units would
result in air emissions from the Breacher, smoke, dust, and other
materials from field testing, as well as land disturbance from the
Breacher tracks and from breaching operations. This land disturbance
could result in some habitat destruction and nonpoint source runoff at
the test ranges, particularly at more vulnerable sites.
Operational impacts are likely to be quite similar to, somewhat
more extensive, and greatly more dispersed in place and time than the
impacts described for the manufacture and testing described above.
Demilitarization impacts would be similar to manufacturing impacts, but
would likely involve more extensive generation of solid and hazardous
waste. Recycling of components and alternative end uses could reduce
this waste generation.
a. Comparison of Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives
(Including the Proposed Action). None of the alternatives would result
in significant impacts to the human environment. There would be some
modest differences in intensity of impacts between the alternatives in
the design and manufacturing, deployment and operations, and
demilitarization phases of the Breacher life cycle due to the larger
number of vehicles produced in the higher production alternative and
the use of new materials to produce the vehicle chassis in the
unrecycled alternative. All of the alternatives would have the same
level of impacts in the transport to test site, testing, and transport
to deployment site life cycle stages because the activities in those
phases would be identical for all alternatives.
The proposed action would be likely to have the least impacts of
all of the alternatives considered because the Breacher vehicle would
eliminate the use of various types of equipment that are less well
suited to its mission. The Breacher would thus be less likely to suffer
the type of accidents, breakdowns, and leakage during operations that
could result in substantial releases of hazardous substances into the
air and water or onto the ground. Such impacts will continue to occur
under the no action alternative, and likely increase in the future as
the current inventory of equipment ages. This factor would likely more
than offset the modest emissions, discharges, and potential releases
that result from the production of the Breacher vehicles. The location
alternative would be likely to have greater impacts than the proposed
action because the UDLP San Jose, California plant is located in a more
sensitive environmental setting than the UDLP York, Pennsylvania plant.
The higher production alternative would have a greater impact than the
proposed action because the increased production would result in more
emissions, discharges, and releases. The unrecycled alternative would
result in greater impacts than the proposed action because the reliance
on new materials and the absence of recycling of existing M1 Abrams
vehicles would result in the generation of considerably more solid and
hazardous waste.
b. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action.
Impacts from the proposed action would be minimal and not significant
for the following reasons (references in the parentheses refer to pages
in the LCEA):
(1) Solid and Hazardous Waste Impacts. Solid and hazardous waste
impacts would not be significant because even though measurable
environmental impacts would be likely to occur during the design and
manufacture stage there is no evidence of any environmental violation
history at either Anniston Army Depot or the UDLP plant at York,
Pennsylvania. In addition, during the transport to test facility and
test phases no measurable environmental impacts would be likely under
normal conditions and while there might be some likelihood of
measurable environmental impacts from accidents they would still be
likely to be minor. (See pp. 18-19, 25, 33, 47-48, 50).
(2) Water Quality Impacts. Water quality impacts would not be
significant because the amounts of both point source and nonpoint
pollutants from all of the life cycle stages would likely result in no
measurable environmental impacts under normal conditions and there
would be little likelihood of measurable impacts even under accidents.
(See pp. 19-20, 24-25, 33-35, 38, 45, 47-49).
(3) Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts would not be
significant because the very minor amount of air emissions from all of
the life cycle stages would likely result in no measurable
environmental impacts under normal conditions and there would be little
likelihood of measurable impacts even under accidents. (See pp. 20, 26,
32, 47, 48-49).
(4) Noise impacts. Noise impacts would not be significant to either
human or wildlife populations because noise-producing activities would
be of short duration under all life cycle stages and the facilities
where the activities would take place are well-buffered from sensitive
human populations. (See pp. 20, 26, 32-33).
(5) Biotic Resources Impacts. Biotic resources impacts would not be
significant because only negligible wildlife disturbance would result
from any direct disturbance or from nonpoint source runoff associated
with soil disturbance during any of the life cycle stages.
Additionally, such disturbance would be widely dispersed at a number of
facilities and thus even less significant at any one of the facilities.
(See pp. 20, 26, 32-35, 38, 45, 48-49).
(6) Socioeconomic Resources Impacts. Socioeconomic resources
impacts would not be significant because the economic activity involved
would simply supplement or replace other activities that might
otherwise be
[[Page 54779]]
occurring at the facilities involved. To that extent these impacts
would be generally positive. Since no new facilities need to be
constructed and no facilities will be closed as a result of the
proposed action there would be very little chance of any negative
socioeconomic impacts occurring. Likewise, no significant cultural
resources impacts would be expected. (See pp. 20, 26, 35).
(7) Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts would be very unlikely
because of the modest intensity of all activities involved in the
Breacher life cycle and the dispersed nature of those activities.
Coupled with their low intensity and widespread nature, the lack of
general environmental compliance problems at any of the facilities
involved in the Breacher life cycle reinforces this conclusion. (See
pp. 23, 27, 36, 39, 46, 49).
(8) Mitigation of Impacts. The use of readily available pollution
prevention measures in place at the facilities that would be involved
in the proposed action would be likely to mitigate the environmental
impacts of all life cycle stages to the point of being undetectable, or
at the most negligible. (See pp. 23, 27, 36-37, 46, 49).
c. Summary of the Significance of Environmental Consequences and
Mitigation Opportunities. Because of the relatively modest number of
Breacher vehicles anticipated to be constructed, existing and
anticipated environmental compliance at the various Breacher
facilities, and the availability of mitigation measures such as in-
place pollution prevention and nonpoint source control programs, these
impacts are not expected to be significant. All military and civilian
facilities have in-place pollution prevention, pollution control, and
emergency preparedness programs. None of these facilities have
extensive environmental compliance problems. Thus, the direct, indirect
and cumulative impacts of the proposed action or alternatives would not
be expected to cause significant adverse impacts to the human
environment.
Alternatives Considered: Alternatives considered in this
environmental assessment include: (1) the proposed action (preferred
alternative) of manufacturing 313 Breacher vehicles by tearing down and
recycling existing M1 Abrams tanks; (2) a ``no-action'' alternative
halting the current program as of June 1966; (3) a ``location
alternative'' that would consist of carrying out the proposed action at
a different facility; (4) a ``higher-production'' alternative of 500
vehicles rather than the 313 vehicles proposed in the preferred
alternative; and (5) an ``unrecycled alternative'' that would involve
carrying out the proposed action using all new components rather than
recycling M1 Abrams tank chassis. No other alternatives have been
considered because the demonstrated need for the Breacher system to
carry out the minefield breaching and countermine missions makes the
five alternatives considered above a reasonable range of alternatives.
Determination
Based on the analyses in the LCEA, production and deployment of the
Breacher do not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of
NEPA. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed
action is not required.
Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-27013 Filed 10-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
