[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25697-25704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11806]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement Los Alamos National
Laboratory
AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a Site-Wide Environmental Impact
Statement for the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to
prepare a Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement (SWEIS) for its Los
Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico, a DOE
multiprogram research and development laboratory. The SWEIS will be
prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, 42 USC 4321 et seq., the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA
regulations [40 CFR Parts 1500-1508] and the DOE NEPA regulations [10
CFR Part 1021]. It will analyze as alternatives various levels of LANL
operations, including reasonable foreseeable new operations and
facilities.
DOE initiated a prescoping process with an Advance Notice of Intent
published in the Federal Register on August 10, 1994 [59 FR 40889].
This Notice of Intent reflects the consideration of comments provided
during the prescoping process, including comments regarding NEPA
reviews initiated or anticipated at the time of the Advance Notice of
Intent, and issues and alternatives for the SWEIS.
DATES: The DOE invites other Federal agencies, the State, Indian
Tribes, local governments, and the general public to comment on the
scope of this SWEIS. The public scoping period starts with the
publication of this notice in the Federal Register and will continue
until June 30, 1995. DOE will consider all comments received or
postmarked by that date in defining the scope of this SWEIS. Comments
received or postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent
practicable. Public scoping meetings are scheduled to be held as
follows:
June 13, 1995; Hilltop House Hotel, 400 Trinity Drive, Los Alamos,
New Mexico 87544
June 14, 1995; Sweeney Center, 201 West Marcy Street, Santa Fe, New
Mexico 87501
June 15, 1995; Northern New Mexico Community College, 1002 North
Onate Street, Espanola, New Mexico 87532
The purpose of these meetings is to receive oral and written
comments from the public. The meetings will use a workshop format to
facilitate dialogue among DOE, LANL, and the public and will provide an
opportunity for individuals to provide written or oral statements. The
DOE will publish additional notices on the dates, times, and locations
of the scoping meetings in local newspapers in advance of the scheduled
meetings. Any necessary changes will be announced in the local media.
In addition to providing oral comments at the public scoping
meetings, all interested parties are invited to record their comments,
ask questions concerning the LANL SWEIS, request speaking times,
request to be placed on the LANL SWEIS mailing or document distribution
list, or request copies of the LANL SWEIS Implementation Plan (when
available) by leaving a message on the LANL SWEIS Hotline at 1-800-898-
6623. The Hotline will have instructions on how to record your comments
and requests.
ADDRESSES: Written comments or suggestions to assist the DOE in
identifying the appropriate scope of the LANL SWEIS should be directed
to: Mr. Corey A. Cruz, U.S. Department of Energy, Albuquerque
Operations Office, P.O. Box 5400, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87185-5400,
or by facsimile at (505) 845-6392. For express delivery services, the
appropriate address is Pennsylvania and H Streets, Kirtland Air Force
Base, Albuquerque, NM 87116.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the SWEIS
and the public scoping process, contact Corey Cruz at the address and
telephone number listed above.
For information on DOE's NEPA process, please contact: Carol
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585. Ms. Borgstrom can be reached at (202) 586-4600, by facsimile at
(202) 586-7031, or by leaving a message at 1-800-472-2756.
[[Page 25698]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment
The public is invited to participate in the scoping process and is
encouraged to comment on the preliminary alternatives and issues
identified for the LANL SWEIS. The results of the scoping process will
be documented in an Implementation Plan which will be made available to
the public and will reflect how comments provided during the scoping
process were incorporated or addressed.
Availability of Scoping Documents
Copies of all written comments, transcripts of all oral comments,
and copies of the SWEIS Implementation Plan will be available at the
following locations:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Community Reading Room, Museum Park
Office Complex, 1450 Central Avenue, Suite 101, Los Alamos, New Mexico
87544, 505-665-2127 or 1-800-543-2342
U.S. Department of Energy, National Atomic Museum Public Reading Room,
Kirtland Air Force Base, Building 20358, Wyoming Boulevard,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185, 505-845-6870/4378.
A full set of comments on the Advance Notice of Intent is available
at the Los Alamos Community Reading Room.
LANL's Mission
Among other missions, DOE is responsible for the Federal
government's nuclear weapons program, research and development of
energy technologies, and basic science research. LANL is one of DOE's
primary research and development laboratories. It was established in
1943 to provide research, design, and testing for nuclear weapons and
nuclear materials, and remains one of the three laboratories in DOE's
nuclear weapons complex. Over the past 50 years, LANL's mission has
expanded to include research in energy, materials science, nuclear
safeguards and security, biomedical science, computational science,
environmental protection and cleanup, and other basic and applied
science research. LANL provides these research and science services for
DOE and other Federal agencies, universities, foreign countries, and
private industry. LANL is one of the largest multidisciplinary research
laboratories in the world, with an annual budget of approximately $1
billion and more than 10,000 contractor and subcontractor employees.
LANL covers about 43 square miles of land held as a Federal reservation
in north-central New Mexico in Los Alamos, Sandoval and Santa Fe
Counties.
A report entitled ``Alternative Futures for the DOE National
Laboratories'' (the ``Galvin Report''), prepared for the Secretary of
Energy by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, was completed in
February 1995. This independent review provided recommendations on the
future missions of all DOE National Laboratories. Although the DOE has
not yet fully determined which of these recommendations will be
adopted, the preliminary SWEIS alternatives are structured to allow for
inclusion of the report's recommendations specific to LANL operations.
The Role of the SWEIS in the DOE NEPA Compliance Strategy
The DOE has a policy [10 CFR 1021.330] of preparing SWEISs for
certain large, multiple-facility sites, such as LANL. The purpose of a
SWEIS is to provide DOE and its stakeholders with an analysis of the
environmental impacts caused by ongoing and reasonably foreseeable new
operations and facilities and reasonable alternatives at a DOE site, to
provide a basis for site-wide decision making, and to improve and
coordinate agency plans, functions, programs, and resource utilization.
Additionally, a SWEIS is to provide an overall NEPA baseline for a site
that is useful for tiering or as a reference when project-specific NEPA
documents are prepared. The NEPA process allows for Federal, state,
tribal, county, municipal, and public participation in the
environmental review process. A SWEIS was last prepared for LANL in
1979 [DOE/EIS-0018]. The proposed SWEIS would replace that document as
the baseline environmental impact statement regarding LANL operations.
A SWEIS is a useful aid for DOE management of its facilities and
operations. It provides the DOE decision makers and the public with
analyses of the cumulative environmental impacts of past, ongoing and
reasonably foreseeable activities at a site and contrasts these with
reasonable alternatives in order to inform decisions regarding the
resources entrusted to DOE's care. A SWEIS can be used as a way to
efficiently deal with multiple proposals and can help establish an
efficient, environmentally sound and cost effective plan for operating
the site and its facilities. In accordance with 10 CFR 1021.330(d), DOE
will evaluate the SWEIS at least every five years after its completion
to determine whether it remains adequate or should be supplemented or
replaced with a new SWEIS.
The LANL Site-Wide Analysis
The SWEIS will address operations and activities that DOE foresees
at LANL within approximately the next 10 years. The SWEIS will focus on
operating practices and facility management, specifically with the
intent to analyze the overall impacts of current and reasonably
foreseeable operations at LANL. The DOE proposes for the SWEIS to
include an analysis of land use requirements related to the operations
at LANL, as well as DOE activities as the primary Natural Resources
Trustee for LANL. The DOE proposes to use the SWEIS to analyze:
mitigation measures for impacts of LANL operations; interim nuclear
materials storage and management strategies for LANL; LANL
environmental restoration strategies; and waste management strategies
for LANL. Specific projects or facilities that are speculative and
therefore not ready for analysis would not be addressed in the SWEIS.
However, if such projects later become definite proposals for action
they would be subject to subsequent project- or facility-specific NEPA
reviews that would be tiered from the SWEIS.
The SWEIS is expected to facilitate and streamline subsequent NEPA
reviews at LANL by allowing DOE to focus on project-specific issues and
to narrow and simplify the scope of later reviews. This process is
called ``tiering'' [40 CFR 1508.28]. DOE believes that the SWEIS
analysis will provide adequate NEPA review for those activities and
projects designated and analyzed within the SWEIS.
Preliminary Alternatives
The scoping process is an opportunity for the public to assist the
DOE in determining the alternatives and issues for analysis. A
preliminary set of alternatives and issues for evaluation in the SWEIS
is identified below, after consideration of comments received during
the prescoping process. In response to prescoping comments, a
discussion of the relationship between programs and specific LANL
operations has been included in each preliminary alternative
description. Future programs and activities will be determined based on
such factors as national needs, scientific developments, budgets,
environmental impacts, the results of NEPA reviews such as the
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (PEIS) discussed below, and other considerations. Thus, the
program discussions provided below are not all-inclusive and are only
examples for the [[Page 25699]] facility operational levels described
in the alternatives. For each of the alternatives discussed, waste
management/environmental restoration activities, interim activities for
nuclear materials storage and handling, and land requirements will be
analyzed. The environmental impacts of both facilities and operations
and cumulative site-wide operations will be assessed. DOE will continue
to conduct ongoing activities as the SWEIS is being prepared.
No Action
The No Action alternative would continue current facility
operations throughout LANL in support of assigned missions. NEPA
regulations require analysis of the No Action alternative to provide a
benchmark for comparison with environmental effects of the other
alternatives. This alternative would include ongoing and proposed
activities for which the NEPA reviews will have been completed prior to
completion of the SWEIS. The current Waste Management/Environmental
Restoration program plans (i.e., actions for which NEPA review will
have been completed) will be reflected in this alternative, including
specific strategies to address anticipated waste generated by facility
and restoration operations.
This alternative reflects the current nuclear weapons program
missions at LANL. This includes support of competence in nuclear
weapons component fabrication technologies; nuclear weapons material
processing to support technology competence, process development and
improvement, and safe, secure storage of the nuclear material
inventory; acceptance and processing of neutron sources from off-site
(from licensees such as universities and corporations that no longer
need them); maintenance of the hydrodynamic test program at projected
material throughputs; destructive evaluation of plutonium components;
continued weapons and other research and development operations using
accelerators; continued operations at the Los Alamos Critical
Experiments Facility in support of existing missions; and
transportation and storage of nuclear material at currently projected
levels.
Reduced Operation
This alternative would reflect a reduction in facility operations
from those currently ongoing and planned. For example, nuclear
materials processing activities would be reduced and consolidated.
Reduced shipments and receipts of nuclear materials would also be
reflected under this alternative, as would a reduced nuclear material
inventory over the time period under analysis (as compared to inventory
projections under the other alternatives). This alternative may include
some construction projects to consolidate operations within existing
facilities, maintain existing facilities, and replace existing
facilities, if necessary. Specific waste management strategies would be
developed to address the types and quantities of waste anticipated
under this scenario. These strategies would consider off-site and on-
site treatment and disposition options.
The programmatic context for this alternative is the maintenance of
existing missions at a reduced scope. This alternative would be
represented by one or more of the following: Maintenance of capability
for fewer weapon production technologies; reduced nuclear materials
processing (only to support safe, secure storage of the LANL
inventory); support of only existing commitments regarding the
processing of neutron sources from off-site; reduction in the materials
throughput for hydrodynamic and other above ground weapon-related
experiments; destructive evaluation of fewer plutonium components each
year; reduction in weapons and other research and development use of
accelerators; a reduced inventory and number of criticality experiments
and training courses at the Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility;
and reduced transportation and storage of nuclear materials.
Expanded Operation
This alternative would reflect an increase in facility operations
to the highest levels that can be supported by current facilities, and
would evaluate those new facilities that are reasonably foreseeable.
This could require construction projects to address safety, security
and environmental compliance as well as to support reconfiguration of
facility equipment and operations to optimize use of current
facilities' capabilities. This could also require construction projects
for reasonably foreseeable new facilities. Specific waste management
strategies would be developed to address the increased types and
quantities of waste anticipated under this scenario, considering off-
site and on-site treatment and disposition options. These waste
management strategies would include alternative approaches to
accommodate the receipt of off-site waste for treatment and disposal,
consistent with the Waste Management PEIS discussed below.
The programmatic context for this alternative is the continued
support of existing missions, and additional missions which may be
supported with the capabilities and capacities inherent in the existing
facilities or which may require new facilities. Such program activities
could include: low-level production of weapon components; increased
throughput for nuclear materials processing; increased support of
processing for off-site neutron sources; increased materials throughput
for hydrodynamic and other test activities; destructive analysis of
additional plutonium components each year; increased use of
accelerators in support of weapons and other research and development
missions; additional numbers and types of experiments at the Los Alamos
Critical Experiments Facility; and increased transportation and storage
of nuclear materials.
Other Alternatives Considered
DOE had asked in the Advance Notice of Intent whether analysis of
an alternative that would describe phasing out all LANL operations and
eventually decommissioning all facilities would be useful for
comparison to ongoing activities. In response, the DOE received seven
comments from the public. Four of the comments supported analysis of
decontamination and decommissioning for the entire site; two
recommended analysis of decontamination and decommissioning for
``nuclear'' related activities and one comment indicated the
decontamination and decommissioning alternative was not reasonable and
should not be analyzed. Of those supporting inclusion of a
decontamination and decommissioning alternative, three appeared to
support it as a determinant of useful comparative information and three
advocated actual shutdown and decommissioning of some or all of LANL.
The seven responses were obtained both orally and in writing from a
population of over 500 comments from over 250 commentors.
DOE carefully considered these comments. DOE also recognizes that
LANL has unique capabilities, diverse roles supporting a variety of
national programs, and that there is an essential near-term need to
manage and maintain the safety and stability of the existing nuclear
materials inventory. Accordingly, in view of the limited community
interest and DOE's view at this time that a decision to shut down LANL
operations within the 5-10 year timeframe of the SWEIS would be highly
unlikely, DOE plans not to expend the time and money that would be
needed to analyze an alternative involving an orderly shutdown during
[[Page 25700]] this period. The public is welcome to comment further on
this issue during the scoping period.
Preliminary List of Issues To Be Addressed
The SWEIS will describe the potential environmental impacts of the
alternatives, using available data where possible and obtaining
additional data where necessary. In accordance with the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500.4 and 1502.21), other
documents, as appropriate, may be incorporated into the impacts
analyses by reference, in whole or in part. The following preliminary
list of issues was identified following the prescoping process. The DOE
specifically invites suggestions for the addition or deletion of items
on this list.
1. Water resources, particularly tritium in the groundwater and
radioactive particles in streams and the Cochiti Reservoir.
2. Cultural resources, particularly regarding Native American
access to land, flora of religious or medicinal significance, and
protection of archeological and religious sites.
3. Air quality, particularly regarding compliance with Federal and
state laws, and releases of radioactive and hazardous materials due to
LANL operations.
4. Land use, particularly regarding use of DOE land by the public,
radioactive contamination of the land, and burial of radioactive and
hazardous materials.
5. Biota, particularly the effects of radioactive and hazardous
releases on elk and the food chain, threatened and endangered species,
and species of special concern.
6. Transportation, particularly regarding the risks of transporting
nuclear material on and off the LANL site, and the need for integrating
emergency plans with state, tribal, and local police and health
organizations in case of a nuclear material release during transport.
7. Socioeconomics, particularly regarding the economic impact of
LANL on the surrounding community.
8. Health effects, particularly regarding incidence of cancer in
workers and the communities surrounding LANL, and other health effects
on the public and workers.
9. Environmental justice, particularly whether or not activities at
LANL disproportionately and adversely affect minority or low-income
populations.
10. Noise/aesthetics, particularly regarding the visual, noise, and
other aesthetic impacts of LANL facilities and operations on the
surrounding communities and potential uses of adjacent land.
Additional issues raised by the public during the prescoping
process include:
National security policy (particularly the need for a
nuclear stockpile, the need for stockpile stewardship, and the effect
of LANL operations on international non-proliferation);
The goals of, and funding for, environmental restoration;
The transfer of land to Pueblos or to Los Alamos County;
Laboratory management (particularly the responsiveness of
LANL management to community concerns, the equity in LANL/DOE outreach
programs, the equity of salary and hiring policies, encouragement of
independent ideas, the management of LANL by the University of
California, and the non-profit status of LANL); and
The credibility of the DOE and LANL (reliability of
information provided by DOE and LANL, concerns regarding the actual
effect of public input on DOE decisions, and a lack of trust in the DOE
to prepare the SWEIS in accordance with the laws and regulations).
While DOE considers these issues to be outside the scope of the
SWEIS, DOE will attempt to address these concerns in the process of
interacting with the public on the SWEIS and on other issues, by
answering questions posed during the SWEIS process, directing
stakeholders to other reviews where appropriate, providing requested
information (to the extent allowed by laws and regulations), and
explaining how public comment and input is considered in each step of
the LANL SWEIS process.
Related NEPA Reviews
Currently, the DOE is analyzing several proposals for programmatic,
site-specific, and project-specific action that affect LANL either
directly or indirectly. These analyses are being performed as NEPA
reviews in several programmatic, site-wide, and project-specific EISs
and environmental assessments. The summaries below are intended to
familiarize the reader with the purpose of these other NEPA reviews and
how LANL is being considered in them.
Programmatic NEPA Reviews
The Waste Management PEIS [Notice of Intent, 55 FR 42633, October
22, 1990; also see 60 FR 4607, January 24, 1995] (formerly called the
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management PEIS) will analyze the
DOE plan to formulate and implement a national integrated Waste
Management program. LANL is one of the alternative sites proposed to
store and process transuranic radioactive waste and to store, process,
and provide on-site disposal for low-level radioactive waste, which may
include material generated at locations other than LANL. The waste
management analyses in the SWEIS will address the facilities and
operations necessary to implement a waste management strategy at LANL,
consistent with the Waste Management PEIS.
The Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration PEIS [revised Notice of
Intent, 59 FR 54175, October 28, 1994] was separated into the Tritium
Supply and Recycling PEIS and the Stockpile Stewardship and Management
PEIS. LANL is not an alternative site for the Tritium Supply and
Recycling PEIS. However, the Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS
will analyze changes in LANL's role in weapons research and development
and may analyze aspects of a LANL weapon component production mission.
Since public scoping for the Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS
has not yet been initiated, LANL's role in the alternatives for this
PEIS cannot now be predicted. The SWEIS is intended to provide the
site-specific analysis for various levels of facility operations that
could support a variety of program missions. The SWEIS will address
LANL facility operations that are expected to be of primary interest to
the public and DOE in support of potential future programs. In this
manner, DOE intends to integrate programmatic analyses for the
Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS with site-specific analyses
of the SWEIS.
The Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Programs PEIS includes a programmatic analysis of transporting,
processing, and storing spent nuclear reactor fuel [Notice of
Availability, Final EIS, 60 FR 20992, April 28, 1995]. LANL has
generated spent fuel and continues to store this material pending the
outcome of programmatic decisions following the spent fuel PEIS. The
nuclear material storage and handling analyses in the SWEIS will
address the continued storage and potential disposition of this fuel,
consistent with this PEIS.
The DOE is preparing a Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable
Fissile Materials PEIS [Notice of Intent, 59 FR 31985, June 21, 1994].
This PEIS will analyze alternatives for the long-term storage and
disposition of surplus nuclear materials, with the exception of surplus
highly enriched uranium, in [[Page 25701]] order to minimize the risk
of proliferation of nuclear weapons capability in the world. Phase I of
the project would be to provide safe, controlled, inspectable interim
storage of nuclear materials. Phase II would be long-term storage or
disposition of surplus material. Among other things, this PEIS will
analyze a new, consolidated long-term storage facility at five
candidate sites (LANL is not a candidate site), as well as continued
use of existing facilities for interim storage. On April 5, 1995, DOE
published a Notice [65 FR 17344] amending the scope of this PEIS by
removing the disposition of all surplus highly enriched uranium.
Instead, DOE will prepare a separate EIS entitled Disposition of
Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium. The scope of this EIS has not yet
finally been determined, because the public scoping period only closed
on May 1, 1995. LANL now stores some nuclear materials; since the SWEIS
addresses approximately a 10-year period, it will analyze storage and
handling of current and projected inventories prior to implementation
of the decisions from Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials PEIS.
The DOE is preparing the Medical Isotope Production at Sandia
National Laboratory/New Mexico and Los Alamos National Laboratory
Environmental Assessment for the proposal to produce medical isotopes
for medical applications such as diagnostics and chemotherapy [EA
determination, November 15, 1994]. The proposal involves irradiating
targets in a nuclear reactor at Sandia National Laboratory,
Albuquerque, processing the material, and disposing of waste.
Alternatives involving LANL facilities would only include fabricating
targets at the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building and disposing
of waste from target fabrication at LANL waste management areas. Target
fabrication and associated activities are ongoing at LANL and as such,
would be analyzed in the SWEIS to provide environmental impacts at a
variety of operational levels.
Ongoing LANL NEPA Reviews
The DOE is preparing an EIS for the construction and operation of
an enhanced radiographic hydrodynamic test facility at LANL. This EIS
examines the alternatives to support some of the stockpile stewardship
missions currently assigned to LANL in the absence of nuclear testing.
The preferred alternative is to complete and operate the partially
constructed Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility. DOE
expects that all or portions of this EIS will be incorporated by
reference into the LANL SWEIS and that the decisions from this EIS will
be reflected in the LANL No Action alternative. The Record of Decision
for this EIS is scheduled for September 1995.
DOE had initiated or considered several other environmental
analyses for specific proposed projects at LANL. Those presented in the
LANL SWEIS Advance Notice of Intent are identified in Table I, with a
summary of comments received on each project through the prescoping
process and the DOE decision as to which project NEPA reviews will
proceed immediately, which will be suspended for inclusion in the
SWEIS, and those which will be deferred until after the SWEIS.
The results of the LANL project-level NEPA reviews that will
precede completion of the SWEIS will be addressed in the No Action
alternative. Projects for which NEPA reviews were suspended for
inclusion in the SWEIS will be addressed in one or more alternatives
and their impacts will be included in the cumulative impact analysis.
It is also likely that additional projects will be proposed as the
SWEIS process continues; each proposal will be reviewed to determine
whether its NEPA process should proceed separately, should be included
in the SWEIS, or should be deferred until after the SWEIS. The exact
relationship between specific proposed projects and the SWEIS
alternatives will be detailed in the Draft SWEIS.
The SWEIS Preparation Process
After the scoping period, DOE will prepare and publish the LANL
SWEIS Implementation Plan, which will be placed in the Los Alamos
National Laboratory Community Reading Room and the Atomic Museum Public
Reading Room, and made available to members of the public upon request.
This document will describe the DOE's plan for preparing the SWEIS,
based upon the results of the scoping process. The Implementation Plan
will include the revised alternatives and environmental issues which
were refined through the scoping process, and will describe how
comments received in the scoping process were considered in its
development.
The DOE intends to complete the Draft EIS in early 1996 and will
announce its availability in the Federal Register and through local
media. The DOE will hold public hearings to solicit comments on the
Draft EIS from the public, organizations, and other agencies, and will
consider all comments in the preparation of the Final EIS. The DOE
intends to complete the Final EIS in December 1996.
DOE expects to issue the Record of Decision in early 1997, but at
least 30 days after a Notice of Availability of the Final EIS is
published in the Federal Register.
Classified Material
DOE will review classified material while preparing this SWEIS.
Within the limits of classification, DOE will provide to the public as
much information as possible. Any classified material DOE needs to use
to explain the purpose and need for action, or the uses, materials, or
impacts analyzed in this SWEIS, will be segregated into a classified
appendix or supplement.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 5th day of May 1995, for the
United States Department of Energy.
Peter Brush,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.
[[Page 25702]]
Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proceed with
Project ANOI recommendation Comments received independent NEPA
review?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radioactive Liquid Suspend the NEPA review for this 6 comments received. 4 concurred No--as long as the
Waste Treatment project and address it in the with the recommendation; 1 existing system can
Facility. SWEIS. asserted that the existing operate safely, DOE
treatment facility is thought to intends to analyze
be leaking; 1 questioned why this proposed
this project has to be in the replacement in the
SWEIS. SWEIS.
Chemistry and Proceed immediately with the NEPA 16 comments received. 5 concurred Yes--proceed with a
Metallurgy review for project actions for with the recommendation; 5 review of the subset
Research Building maintenance of the existing indicated that additional of proposed upgrades,
Upgrades. infrastructure, for improved information was required to as recommended in the
safety of operations to workers develop a position on this ANOI. Additional
and the public, for enhanced subject; 3 indicated that DOE upgrades will be
environmental management should pursue uses for this analyzed in the
systems, and for improved facility and funding which can SWEIS.
security. Other upgrades should better benefit society; and 3
be suspended and addressed in opposed any upgrades prior to
the SWEIS. the completion of the SWEIS.
High Explosives Proceed with the NEPA review for 2 comments received. 1 concurred No--the project has
Materials Test this project immediately. with the recommendation, given been cancelled.
Facility. limited information; 1 opposed
this recommendation, proposing
that it be covered in the SWEIS.
Isotope Separator Defer the NEPA review for this 3 comments received. All 3 No--defer until after
Facility. project until after the SWEIS. concurred with the SWEIS.
recommendation.
Low Energy Proceed with the NEPA review for 3 comments received. All 3 Environmental
Accelerator this project immediately. opposed the recommendation. Assessment has been
Laboratory. completed and a
Finding of No
Significant Impact
has been issued.
Nuclear Materials The NEPA review for upgrades that 8 comments received. 3 concurred No--repair and operate
Storage Facility would increase capacity should with the recommendation; 3 up to 6.6 metric
Upgrade. be suspended and addressed in indicated that additional tons; proposed
the SWEIS. Activities to correct information was necessary capacity changes will
design deficiencies should regarding nuclear material be addressed in the
proceed based upon previous NEPA storage at LANL; 1 opposed SWEIS.
documentation. storage of weapons usable
fissile materials of any kind; 1
opposed even repairs to this
facility pending completion of
the SWEIS.
Safety Testing of Proceed with the NEPA review for 4 comments received. 2 opposed No--this subject will
Pits under this project immediately. the recommendation; 2 indicated be addressed in the
Thermal Stress. that additional information was SWEIS.
necessary regarding the benefits
of this project.
Transuranic Waste Proceed with the NEPA review for 2 comments received. Both opposed Yes--in order to
Drum Staging this project immediately. the recommendation. support staging of
Building. waste drums generated
by ongoing
activities.
Weapons Components Proceed with the NEPA review for 3 comments received. 1 comment Environmental
Test Facility this project immediately. indicated concurrence with the assessment has been
Relocation. recommendation; 1 comment completed and a
indicated that additional Finding of No
information on this project was Significant Impact
required; 1 comment indicated has been issued.
that public opinion on this
subject was moot because the
environmental assessment had
since been completed.
Decontaminate, Suspend the NEPA review for this 3 comments received. All 3 No--this subject will
Decommission, and project and address it in the concurred with the be addressed in the
Demolish SWEIS. recommendation. SWEIS.
Building, TA-33-
86.
New Sanitary Suspend the NEPA review for this 4 comments received. 3 concurred No--this subject will
Landfill. project and address it in the with the recommendation; 1 be addressed in the
SWEIS. requested that more emphasis be SWEIS.
placed on minimization of
sanitary waste.
Actinide Source Proceed with the NEPA review for 3 comments received. 2 opposed Environmental
Term Waste Test this project immediately. the recommendation; 1 indicated assessment has been
Program. that additional information was completed and a
required to reach an opinion on Finding of No
this subject. Significant Impact
has been issued.
[[Page 25703]]
Controlled Air Suspend the NEPA review for 17 comments received. 2 concurred No--this subject,
Incinerator treatment operations and address with the recommendation; 1 including the trial
Operations. that in the SWEIS; no indicated that no aspects of burn, will be
recommendations were made incinerator operations be addressed in the
regarding the NEPA review for included in the SWEIS; 2 SWEIS. This process
the proposed trial burn. indicated that additional is being placed on
information on this subject was stand-by pending
required; 5 indicated concerns completion of the
with the impacts of SWEIS.
incineration; 2 indicated
opposition to incineration of
waste; 1 indicated that
alternatives to incineration
should be examined with the same
rigor as applied to
incineration; 1 indicated LANL
needs to obey all laws enacted
for public protection; 1
indicated the need to study the
environmental impacts of the
incinerator; and 2 indicated
that all incinerator activities
(including the trial burn) be
suspended and included in the
SWEIS.
Expansion of Area Suspend the NEPA review for this 19 comments received. 5 concurred No--this subject will
G Low-Level Waste project and address it in the with the recommendation; 4 be addressed in the
Disposal Area. SWEIS. indicated that additional SWEIS.
information was required on this
subject; 1 indicated that
alternatives to burial should be
pursued; 3 indicated concern
regarding the scope and impact
of Area G expansion; 1 indicated
that environmental restoration
waste should be considered
weapons-related waste; 1
indicated that LANL is not in
full compliance with
regulations; 4 indicated
opposition to any expansion of
Area G.
Hazardous Waste Proceed with the NEPA review for 3 comments received. 2 opposed Yes--to support near-
Treatment this project immediately. the recommendation; 1 indicated term programmatic
Facility and no opinion on the recommendation. requirements.
Mixed Waste
Receiving and
Storage Facility.
High Explosives No initial recommendation was 5 comments received. 1 comment Yes--to support near-
Wastewater made regarding the NEPA review requested that DOE proceed term objectives
Treatment for this project. promptly with NEPA documentation regarding waste
Facility. for this project; 2 indicated minimization and
that additional information was management.
required on this subject; 2
requested that the NEPA
documentation for this project
be suspended and addressed in
the SWEIS.
Mixed Waste No initial recommendation was 4 comments received. 1 concurred Yes--for support of
Disposal Facility. made regarding the NEPA review with the DOE proposal; 3 opposed the environmental
for this project. However, the any action proceeding for this restoration program
DOE proposed to proceed with an project prior to completion of only. The use of this
environmental assessment for the the SWEIS. facility for other
environmental restoration waste waste sources will be
only. examined in the
SWEIS.
National Defer the NEPA review for this 3 comments received. All 3 No--defer until after
Biomedical Tracer project until after the SWEIS is concurred with the the SWEIS.
Facility. completed. recommendation.
Laundry........... Proceed with the NEPA review for 3 comments received. 2 opposed No--this subject will
this project immediately. the recommendation; 1 indicated be addressed in the
that this facility might benefit SWEIS.
from analysis in the SWEIS, but
noted insufficient information
to reach a clear decision.
Receipt and Proceed with the NEPA review for 3 comments received. All 3 Yes--to support the
Storage of this project immediately. opposed the recommendation. programmatic need for
Nuclear Material this material.
for Criticality
Experiment.
Hazardous Low- Proceed with the NEPA review for 3 comments received. All 3 Yes--to support near
Level this project immediately. indicate support of the term waste management
Radioactive, and recommendation. program activities.
Mixed Waste
Treatment Skids.
Replacement Waste Proceed with the NEPA review for 5 comments received. All 5 This proposed
Compactor. this project immediately. indicate support of the replacement has been
recommendation. categorically
excluded from further
NEPA review.
Radioisotope Heat Proceed with the NEPA review for 3 comments received. All 3 No--this subject will
Source this project immediately. indicate opposition to the be addressed in the
Fabrication. recommendation. SWEIS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25704]] [FR Doc. 95-11806 Filed 5-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
