[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 181 (Monday, September 20, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50797-50806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24456]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision: Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for
Continued Operation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the State
of New Mexico
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this Record of
Decision on the continued operation of the Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) in the State of New Mexico. This Record of Decision
is based on the information and analysis contained in the Site-Wide
Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of the Los
Alamos National Laboratory, DOE/EIS-0238 (including the classified
supplement), and other factors, including the mission responsibilities
of the Department, and comments received on the final Site-Wide
Environmental Impact Statement. DOE has decided to implement the
Preferred Alternative, which, with certain limitations, is the Expanded
Operations Alternative. This alternative would expand operations at
LANL, as the need arises, to increase the level of existing operations
to the highest reasonably foreseeable levels, and to fully implement
the mission elements assigned to LANL.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the Site-
Wide Environmental Impact Statement or to receive a copy of the Site-
Wide Environmental Impact Statement or other information related to
this Record of Decision, contact: Corey Cruz, Document Manager, U.S.
Department of Energy, Albuquerque Operations Office, P.O. Box 5400,
Albuquerque, NM 87185, (505) 845-4282.
For information on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process, contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy
and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at
(800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
DOE prepared this Record of Decision pursuant to the regulations of
the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR
Parts 1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part
1021). This Record of Decision is based, in part, on DOE's Site-Wide
Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of the Los
Alamos National Laboratory, (DOE/EIS-0238). LANL is located in north-
central New Mexico, 60 miles (96 kilometers) north-northeast of
Albuquerque, 25 miles (40 kilometers) northwest of Santa Fe, and 20
miles (32 kilometers) southwest of Espanola. LANL occupies an area of
approximately 27,832 acres (11,272 hectares), or approximately 43
square miles (111 square kilometers), of which 86 percent lies within
Los Alamos County and 14 percent within Santa Fe County. The Fenton
Hill site (Technical Area [TA]-57), a remote site 20 miles (32
kilometers) west of LANL, occupies 15 acres (6 hectares) in Sandoval
County on land leased from the U.S. Forest Service. LANL is divided
into 49 separate Technical Areas. LANL is a multi-disciplinary,
multipurpose national laboratory engaged in theoretical and
experimental research and development. DOE has assigned elements of
each of its four principal missions (National Security, Energy
Resources, Environmental Quality, and Science) to LANL, and has
established and maintains several capabilities in support of these
mission elements, including applications of science and technology to
the nuclear weapons program. These capabilities also support
applications for other Federal agencies and other organizations in
accordance with national priorities and policies.
DOE is currently engaged in other NEPA reviews that include LANL as
an alternate location for the action under consideration. These other
NEPA reviews include programmatic and project Environmental Impact
Statements for Waste Management and Surplus Plutonium Disposition.
Since these other Environmental Impact Statements identify potential
new or expanded activities for LANL, the impacts of these activities
are described under the Preferred Alternative in the Site-Wide
Environmental Impact Statement. The nature of the decisions in this
Record of Decision with regard to the Waste Management programmatic and
project proposals is simply to reserve infrastructure at LANL pending
completion of these programmatic and project reviews and the
corresponding decision document. With regard to the Surplus Plutonium
Disposition program, the nature of the decision in this Record of
Decision is to maintain the competency and capability to fabricate the
Lead Assemblies as evaluated in the Surplus Plutonium Disposition
Environmental Impact Statement (SPD EIS). However, the availability and
capacity of facilities to perform such work may be limited because of
competing priorities from the weapons program. DOE's resolution of any
such competing priorities will be reflected in the Record of Decision
for the SPD EIS.
DOE was directed by Congress (Pub. L. 105-119) to convey or
transfer parcels of DOE land in the vicinity of LANL to the
Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New Mexico, and the Secretary of the
Interior, in trust for the San Ildefonso Pueblo. Such parcels, or
tracts of land, must not be required to meet the national security
mission of LANL and must also meet other criteria established by the
Act. DOE has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement to examine
the potential environmental impacts associated with the conveyance or
transfer of 10 specific parcels. EPA published a Notice of Availability
for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Conveyance and
Transfer of Certain Land Tracts Administered by the Department of
Energy and Located at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos and
Santa Fe Counties, New Mexico, in the Federal Register on February 26,
1999.
The Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement considers the
environmental impacts of ongoing and proposed activities at LANL. DOE
expects that it will continue to suggest new programs, projects, and
facilities for LANL (or consider LANL as an alternative site for such
facilities or activities). These new proposals will be analyzed in
programmatic or project-specific NEPA reviews, as they become ripe for
decision. Subsequent NEPA reviews
[[Page 50798]]
will make reference to, and be tiered from, the Site-wide Environmental
Impact Statement; and subsequent DOE decisions on these proposals may
amend this Record of Decision.
Alternatives Considered
DOE analyzed four broad alternative levels of operation at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory. The four alternatives are as follows:
Alternative 1--No Action
The No Action Alternative reflects the levels of operation at LANL
that are currently planned. This includes operations that provide for
continued support of DOE's four primary missions, but would not include
an increase in the existing pit manufacturing capacity (beyond the
current capacity of 14 pits per year) nor expansion of the low-level
waste disposal facility at Technical Area-54 (the remaining space in
the existing Area G footprint would be used, but some low-level waste
would be shipped off-site for disposal). This alternative includes the
maintenance of existing capabilities, continued support/infrastructure
activities, and implementation of several facility construction or
modification projects throughout LANL that have previous NEPA reviews.
Alternative 2--Expanded Operations (DOE's Preferred Alternative Except
for Pit Manufacturing)
The Expanded Operations Alternative would expand operations at
LANL, as the need arises, to increase the level of existing operations
to the highest reasonably foreseeable levels, and to fully implement
the mission elements assigned to LANL. This includes the impacts of the
full implementation of pit manufacturing up to a capacity of 50 pits
per year under single-shift operations (80 pits per year using multiple
shifts). This alternative includes the expansion of the low-level waste
disposal site at Technical Area-54, including receipt of off-site
wastes. In addition, this alternative includes the continued
maintenance of existing and expanded capabilities, continued support/
infrastructure activities, and implementation of several facility
construction or modification projects at Technical Area-53 (i.e., the
Long-Pulse Spallation Source, the 5-Megawatt Target/Blanket
Experimental Area, the Dynamic Experiment Laboratory, and the Isotope
Production Facility).
Alternative 3--Reduced Operations
The Reduced Operations Alternative reflects the minimum levels of
operation at LANL considered necessary to maintain the capabilities to
support DOE missions over the near-term (through the year 2007). While
the capabilities are maintained under this alternative, this may not
constitute full support of the mission elements currently assigned to
LANL. This alternative reflects pit manufacturing at a level below the
existing capacity (at 6 to 12 pits per year) and reflects shipment of
much of the low-level waste generated at LANL for off-site disposal
(on-site disposal would be limited to those waste types for which LANL
has a unique capability at Area G). This alternative includes the
maintenance of existing capabilities, continued support/infrastructure
activities, and implementation of several facility construction or
modification projects throughout LANL that have previous NEPA reviews;
some of the projects previously reviewed under NEPA would be reduced in
scope or eliminated (e.g., the Low-Energy Demonstration Accelerator
would only be operated at the lower end of its energy range).
Alternative 4--``Greener''
The ``Greener'' Alternative reflects increased levels of operation
at LANL in support of nonproliferation, basic science, and materials
recovery/stabilization mission elements, and reduced levels of
operation in support of defense and nuclear weapons mission elements.
All LANL capabilities are maintained for the short term under this
alternative; however, this may not constitute full support of the
nuclear weapons mission elements currently assigned to LANL. This
alternative reflects pit manufacturing at a level below the existing
capacity (at 6 to 12 pits per year) and reflects shipment of much of
the low-level waste generated at LANL for off-site disposal (on-site
disposal would be limited to those waste types for which LANL has a
unique capability at Area G). This alternative includes the maintenance
of existing capabilities, continued support/infrastructure activities,
and implementation of several facility construction or modification
projects at Technical Area-53 (i.e., the Long-Pulse Spallation Source,
the 5-Megawatt Target/Blanket Experimental Area, the Dynamic Experiment
Laboratory, and the Isotope Production Facility.) The name and general
description for this alternative were provided by interested public
stakeholders as a result of the scoping process.
Preferred Alternative
In the draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, the
Preferred Alternative was the Expanded Operations Alternative. In the
final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, the Expanded Operations
Alternative is the Preferred Alternative with one modification, which
involves the level at which pit manufacturing would be implemented at
LANL. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, DOE would expand
operations at LANL, as the need arises, to increase the level of
existing operations to the highest reasonably foreseeable levels. This
expansion of operations would apply broadly to the essential science
and technology activities across LANL, and would apply to the level of
activity for those operations (e.g., increased throughput or increased
numbers of experiments). The Expanded Operations alternative includes
expansion to fully implement pit manufacturing up to the capacity of 50
pits per year under single-shift operations (80 pits per year using
multiple shifts) assigned to LANL in the Record of Decision for the
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement.
However, as a result of delays in the implementation of the
Capability Maintenance and Improvement Project and recent additional
controls and operational constraints applied to work conducted in the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Building, DOE has determined,
as a matter of policy, to postpone any decision to expand pit
manufacturing beyond a level of a nominal 20 pits per year in the near
future (through the year 2007), and to study further methods for
implementing the 50 pits per year production capacity. The revised
Preferred Alternative reflects implementing pit manufacturing at the
20-pit-per-year level. This postponement does not modify the long-term
goal announced in the Record of Decision for the Stockpile Stewardship
and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement of 50 pits
per year (up to 80 pits per year using multiple shifts).
The Preferred Alternative includes the expansion of the low-level
waste disposal site at Technical Area-54. The Preferred Alternative
also includes the continued maintenance of existing and expanded
capabilities, continued support/infrastructure activities, and
implementation of several facility construction or modification
projects at Technical Area-53 (i.e., the Long-Pulse Spallation Source,
the 5-Megawatt Target/Blanket Experimental Area, the Dynamic Experiment
Laboratory, and the Isotope Production Facility).
[[Page 50799]]
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The Council on Environmental Quality, in its ``Forty Most Asked
Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations'' (46 FR 18026, 2/23/81),
with regard to 40 CFR 1505.2, defined the ``environmentally preferable
alternative'' as the alternative ``that will promote the national
environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101. Ordinarily,
this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the
biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative
which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and
natural resources.''
After considering impacts to each resource area by alternative, DOE
has identified Alternative 3, Reduced Operations, as the
environmentally preferable alternative. Alternative 3 was identified as
having the fewest direct impacts to the physical environment and to
worker and public health and safety because all operations would be at
the lowest levels. However, the analyses indicate that there would be
very little difference in the environmental impacts among the
alternatives analyzed. The major discriminators among alternatives are
collective worker risks due to radiation exposure, socioeconomic
effects due to LANL employment changes, and electrical power demand.
Therefore, Reduced Operations would have the fewest impacts and
Expanded Operations would have the most.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
DOE weighed environmental impacts as one factor in its decision
making. DOE analyzed the potential impacts that might occur to land
resources; geology, geological conditions, and soils; water resources,
air quality; ecological and biological resources, human health,
environmental justice, cultural resources; and socioeconomic,
infrastructure, and waste management for the four alternatives. DOE
considered the impacts that might occur from use of special nuclear
materials, facility accidents, and the transportation of radioactive
and other materials associated with LANL operations. DOE considered the
impacts of projects and activities associated with each alternative,
the irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources, and the
relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.
The highest resource impacts under any of the alternatives will be
to the electrical power infrastructure. Peak electrical demand under
the Reduced Operations Alternative exceeds supply during the winter
months and may result in periodic brownouts. Peak electrical demand
under the No Action, Expanded Operations, and Greener Alternatives
exceeds the power supply in both winter and summer, when this may
result in periodic brownouts. (Power supply to the Los Alamos area has
been a concern for a number of years, and DOE continues to work with
other users in the area and power suppliers to increase supply and
reduce use.)
Nonradioactive hazardous air pollutants would not be expected to
degrade air quality or affect human health under any of the
alternatives. The differences in activities among the alternatives do
not result in large differences in chemical usage. The activities at
LANL are such that large amounts of chemicals are not typically used in
any industrial process at LANL (compared to what may be used in
commercial manufacturing facilities); but research and development
activities involving many users dispersed throughout the site are the
norm. Air emissions are, therefore, not expected to change by a
magnitude that would, for example, trigger more stringent regulatory
requirements or warrant continuous monitoring. Radioactive air
emissions change slightly, but are within a narrow range due to the
controls placed on these types of emissions and the need to assure
compliance with regulatory standards. The collective population
radiation doses from these emissions range from about 11 person-rem per
year to 33 person-rem per year across the alternatives, and the
radiation dose to the maximally exposed individual ranges from 1.9
millirem per year to 5.4 millirem per year across the alternatives.
These doses were considered in the human health impact analysis.
The total radiological doses from normal operations over the next
10 years to the public under any of the alternatives are relatively
small and are not expected to result in any excess latent cancer
fatalities (LCFs) to members of the public. Additionally, exposure to
chemicals due to LANL operations under any of the alternatives is not
expected to result in significant effects to either workers or the
public. Exposure pathways associated with the traditional practices of
communities in LANL area (special pathways) would not be expected to
result in human health effects under any of the alternatives. The
annual collective radiation dose to workers at LANL ranges from 170
person-rem per year to 833 person-rem per year across the alternatives.
These dose levels would be expected to result in from 0.07 to 0.33
excess LCFs per year of operation, respectively, among the exposed
workforce. These impacts, in terms of excess LCFs per year of
operation, reflect the numbers of excess fatal cancers estimated to
occur among the exposed members of the work force over their lifetimes
per year of LANL operations. These impacts form an upper bound, and the
actual consequences could be less, but probably would not be worse.
Worker exposures to physical safety hazards are expected to result
in a range of 417 (Reduced Operations) to 507 (Expanded Operations)
reportable cases each year; typically, such cases would result in minor
or short-term effects to workers, but some of these incidents could
result in long-term health effects or even death.
LANL employment (including the University of California employees
and those of the two subcontractors with the largest employment among
LANL subcontractors) ranges from 9,347 (Reduced Operations) to 11,351
(Expanded Operations) full-time equivalents across the alternatives, as
compared to 9,375 LANL full-time equivalents in 1996. These changes in
employment would result in changes in regional population, employment,
personal income, and other socioeconomic measures. Under any of the
alternatives, these secondary effects would change existing conditions
in the region by less than 5 percent.
Water demand for LANL ranges from 602 million gallons (2,279
million liters) per year to 759 million gallons (2,873 million liters)
per year across the alternatives; the total water demand (including
LANL and the residences and other businesses and agencies in the area)
is within the existing DOE Rights to Water, and would result in average
drops of 10 to 15 feet (3.1 to 4.6 meters) in the water levels in DOE
well fields over the next 10 years. Usage, therefore, will remain
within a fairly tight range among the alternatives. The related aspect
of wastewater discharges is also within a narrow range for that reason.
Outfall flows range from 218 to 278 million gallons (825 to 1,052
million liters) per year across the alternatives, and these flows are
not expected to result in substantial changes to existing surface or
groundwater quantities. Outfall flows are not expected to result in
substantial surface contaminant transport under any of the
alternatives. However, since mechanisms for recharge to groundwater are
highly
[[Page 50800]]
uncertain, it is possible that discharges under any of the alternatives
could result in contaminant transport in groundwater and off the site,
particularly beneath Los Alamos Canyon and Sandia Canyon, which have
increased outfall flows. The outfall flows associated with the Expanded
Operations and Greener Alternatives reflect the largest potential for
such contaminant transport, and the flows associated with the Reduced
Operations Alternative have the least potential for such transport.
There is little difference in the impacts to geology, geological
conditions, and soils across the alternatives. Wastewater discharge
volumes with associated contaminants do change across the alternatives,
but not to a degree noticeable in terms of impacts (such as causing
soil erosion, for example). Under all of the alternatives, small
quantities (as compared to existing conditions) of contaminants would
be deposited in soils due to continued LANL operations, and the
Environmental Restoration Project would continue to remove existing
contaminants at sites to be remediated. Geological mapping and fault
trenching studies at LANL are currently under way or recently completed
to better define the rates of fault movements, specifically of the
Pajarito Fault, and the location and possible southern termination of
the Rendija Canyon Fault. Ongoing and recently completed seismic hazard
studies indicate that slip rates (recurrence intervals for earthquakes)
are within the parameters assumed in the 1995 seismic hazards study at
LANL.
There is little difference in the impacts to land resources between
the No Action, Reduced Operations, and the Greener Alternatives.
Differences among the alternatives are primarily associated with
operations in existing facilities, and very little new development is
planned. Therefore, these impacts are essentially the same as currently
experienced. The Expanded Operations Alternative has very similar land
resources impacts to those of the other three alternatives, with the
principal differences being attributable to the visual impacts of
lighting along the proposed transportation corridor between the
Plutonium Facility and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building
(this corridor will not be built under the Preferred Alternative) and
the noise and vibration associated with increased frequency of high
explosives testing (as compared to the other three alternatives).
No significant adverse impact to ecological and biological
resources is projected under any of the alternatives. The separate
analyses of impacts to air and water resources constitute some of the
source information for analysis of impacts in this area; as can be seen
from the above discussion, the variation across the alternatives is not
of a sufficient magnitude to cause large differences in effects. The
impacts of the Expanded Operations Alternative differ from those of the
other alternatives in that there is some projected loss of habitat;
however, this habitat loss is small (due to limited new construction)
compared to available similar habitat in the immediate vicinity.
DOE expects no environmental justice impacts from the operation of
LANL under any of the alternatives, i.e., projected impacts are not
disproportionately high for minority or low-income populations in the
area. DOE also analyzed human health impacts from exposure through
special pathways, including ingestion of game animals, fish, native
vegetation, surface waters, sediments, and local produce; absorption of
contaminants in sediments through the skin; and inhalation of plant
materials. The special pathways have the potential to be important to
the environmental justice analysis because some of these pathways may
be more important or viable for the traditional or cultural practices
of minority populations in the area. However, human health impacts
associated with these special pathways also will not present
disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income
populations.
Under all of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement
alternatives, there is a negligible to low potential for impacts to
archaeological and historic resources due to shrapnel and vibration
caused by explosives testing and contamination from emissions.
Potential impacts will vary in intensity in accordance with the
frequency of explosives tests and the operational levels that generate
emissions (e.g., Reduced Operations would reflect the lowest potential,
and Expanded Operations would reflect the highest potential). Recent
assessments of prehistoric resources indicate a low potential compared
to the effects of natural conditions (wind, rain, etc.). In addition to
these potential impacts, the Expanded Operations Alternative includes
the expansion of the low-level waste disposal site at Technical Area-
54, which contains several National Register of Historic Places sites;
if any significant cultural resources will be adversely effected by the
undertaking, DOE will consult with the New Mexico State Historic
Preservation Office and other consulting parties to resolve the adverse
effect.
The potential impacts to specific traditional cultural properties
would depend on their number, characteristics, and location. Such
resources could be adversely affected by changes in water quality and
quantity, erosion, shrapnel from explosives testing, noise and
vibration from explosives testing, and contamination from ongoing
operations. Such impacts would vary in intensity in accordance with the
frequency of explosive tests and the operational levels that generate
emissions. The current practice of consultation would continue to be
used to provide opportunities to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
any traditional cultural properties located at LANL.
LANL chemical waste generation ranges from 3,173 to 3,582 tons
(2,878,000 to 3,249,300 kilograms) per year across the alternatives.
LANL low-level waste generation, including low-level mixed waste,
ranges from 338,210 to 456,530 cubic feet (9,581 to 12,837 cubic
meters) per year across the alternatives. LANL transuranic (TRU) waste
generation, including mixed TRU waste, ranges from 6,710 to 19,270
cubic feet (190 to 547 cubic meters) across the alternatives. Disposal
of these wastes at on-site or off-site locations is projected to
constitute a relatively small portion of the existing capacity for
disposal sites; disposal of all LANL low-level waste on the site would
require expansion of the low-level waste disposal capacity beyond the
existing footprint of Technical Area-54 Area G under all alternatives
(although this is only included in the analysis of the Expanded
Operations Alternative).
Radioactively contaminated space in LANL facilities would increase
by about 63,000 square feet (5,853 square meters) under the No Action,
Reduced Operations, and Greener Alternatives (due primarily to actions
previously reviewed under NEPA but not fully implemented at the time
the existing contaminated space estimate was established [May 1996]).
The Expanded Operations Alternative would increase contaminated space
in LANL facilities by about 73,000 square feet (6,782 square meters).
The creation of new contaminated space causes a clean-up burden in the
future, including the generation of radioactive waste for treatment and
disposal; the actual impacts of such clean-up actions are highly
uncertain because they are dependent on the actual characteristics of
the facilities, the technologies
[[Page 50801]]
available, and the applicable requirements at the time of the cleanup.
Incident-free transportation associated with LANL activities over
the next 10 years would be conservatively expected to cause radiation
doses that would result in about one excess latent cancer fatality to a
member of the public and two excess latent cancer fatalities to members
of LANL workforce over their lifetimes under each of the Site-Wide
Environmental Impact Statement alternatives. There is little variation
in impacts because effects are small, and the increased transport of
radioactive materials is not enough to make a significant change in
those small effects.
Transportation accidents without an associated cargo release over
the next 10 years of LANL operations are conservatively projected to
result in from 33 to 76 injuries and 3 to 8 fatalities (including
workers and the public) across the alternatives. The bounding off-site
and on-site transportation accidents over the next 10 years involving a
release of cargo would not be expected to result in any injuries or
fatalities to members of the public for any of the alternatives.
Accidents were analyzed by type of material, and the maximum quantities
were selected for analysis. These parameters do not change across the
alternatives. Total risk also does not change appreciably across the
alternatives because the frequency of shipments does not vary enough to
substantially influence the result.
The accident analyses (other than transportation and worker
physical safety incidents/accidents) considered a variety of initiators
(including natural and manmade phenomena), the range of activities at
LANL, and the range of radioactive and other hazardous materials at
LANL. Transportation accidents and the relatively frequent worker
physical safety incidents/accidents were considered separately. The
accidents discussed below are those that bound the accident risks at
LANL (other than transportation and physical safety incidents/
accidents).
The operational accident analysis included four scenarios that
would result in multiple source releases of hazardous materials: three
due to a site-wide earthquake and one due to a wildfire, resulting in
three different degrees of consequences and one wildfire scenario.
These four scenarios dominate the radiological risk due to accidents at
LANL because they involve radiological releases at multiple facilities
and are considered credible (that is, they would be expected to occur
more often than once in a million years), with the wildfire considered
likely. Another earthquake-initiated accident, labeled RAD-12, is
facility-specific (to Building Technical Area-16-411) and is dominated
by the site-wide earthquake accidents due to its very low frequency
(about 1.5 x 10 -6 per year). It is noteworthy that the
consequences of such earthquakes are dependent on the frequency of the
earthquake event, the facility design, and the amount of material that
could be released due to the earthquake; such features do not change
across the alternatives, so the impacts of these accidents are the same
for all four alternatives. The risks were estimated conservatively in
terms of both the frequency of the events and the consequences of such
events. (In particular, it is noteworthy that the analysis assumes that
any building that would sustain structural or systems damage in an
earthquake scenario does so in a manner that creates a path for release
of material outside of the building.) The total risk of an accident is
the product of the accident frequency and the consequences to the total
population within 50 miles (80 kilometers). This risk ranges from 0.046
(SITE-01, i.e., seismic event) and 0.034 (SITE-04, i.e., wildfire
event) excess latent cancer fatalities per year of operation, to
extremely small numbers for most of the radiological accidents. The
risk for release of chemicals, such as chlorine, is calculated
similarly as the product of the frequency and numbers of people exposed
to greater than the selected guideline concentration, Emergency
Response Planning Guideline (ERPG)-2. (ERPG-2 is the maximum airborne
concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals
could be exposed for up to 1 hour without irreversible or serious
health effects or symptoms that could impair their abilities to take
protective action). Under all alternatives, the risks for chemical
releases range from 6.4 (SITE-01) people exposed per year of operation
to extremely small numbers for some chemical releases. In general, such
earthquakes would be expected to cause fatalities due to falling
structures or equipment; this also would be true for LANL facilities.
Thus, worker fatalities due to the direct effects of the earthquakes
would be expected. Worker injuries or fatalities due to the release of
radioactive or other hazardous materials would be expected to be small
or modest increments to the injuries and fatalities due to the direct
effects of the earthquakes.
Comments on the Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement
DOE distributed approximately 500 copies of the final Site-Wide
Environmental Impact Statement to Congressional members and committees,
the State of New Mexico, various American Indian Tribal governments and
organizations, local governments, other Federal agencies, and the
general public. Comments were received from the U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOI) and Chestnut Law Offices, representing San Ildefonso
Pueblo. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not provide
comments on the final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement stating
in the Federal Register (64 FR 18901) that ``Review of the FEIS was not
deemed necessary. No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing
agency.''
DOI identified two areas of concern with the final Site-Wide
Environmental Impact Statement. The first concern is that the Site-Wide
Environmental Impact Statement does not adequately assess the direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects of programs and activities associated
with the continued operation of LANL either on or off the site. DOI
maintains that the existing impacts from the environmental baseline
should be quantified and not restricted to the evaluation of only two
site-specific projects. DOI further states that while programs and
activities that are proposed or under way may help to reduce adverse
impacts, these programs and activities were not adequately evaluated in
the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement.
Chapter 4 (Volume I) of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact
Statement presents the environmental setting and existing conditions
associated with LANL operations. The information presented in Chapter 4
forms a baseline for use in evaluating the environmental impacts of the
four Site-Wide alternatives. For all alternatives, assessment of
significance was accomplished both quantitatively where data and
analysis were available, and qualitatively. The assessment of the
potential effects, both positive and adverse, of the Expanded
Operations, Reduced Operations, Greener, and No Action Alternatives was
based on the degree of change from baseline conditions and was
presented in Chapter 5 (Volume I) of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact
Statement. DOE integrated many programs and activities, including the
Natural Resources Management Plan (see Mitigation Measures), that would
reduce adverse impacts in its analysis of environmental impacts.
DOI's second concern is threatened and endangered species
protection at LANL. DOI does not concur with DOE's determination that
implementation of
[[Page 50802]]
the Expanded Operation Alternative may affect but would not likely
adversely affect four listed species at LANL. The DOI believes that
measures necessary to reduce impacts to threatened and endangered
species that are identified through the consultation process should be
incorporated into the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement as
required measures.
On April 29, 1999, subsequent to DOI's submittal of comments on the
final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, DOE initiated formal
section 7 consultation between the DOI and DOE for DOE's proposal to
expand existing operations at LANL. DOE sees this consultation process
as an opportunity to further the stewardship of listed species provided
by the recently implemented Threatened and Endangered Species
Management Plan for LANL. Based on communications with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, DOE anticipates that the Service will issue a
Biological Opinion in the near future. Upon its receipt DOE will
continue to coordinate with the Service the integration into the
operation of LANL of any needed measures recommended in the Biological
Opinion that will contribute to the welfare of listed species. DOE
believes that this process should proceed on a separate, parallel track
from that of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement process.
The Chestnut Law Offices, representing San Ildefonso Pueblo,
identified three issues of concern with the final Site-Wide
Environmental Impact Statement. First, Chestnut Law Offices states that
the environmental justice analysis is flawed because it divides San
Ildefonso Pueblo into several different segments thereby not indicating
any adverse impacts to the Pueblo. Chestnut Law Offices states that
most environmental risk is at the perimeter of the laboratory directly
affecting San Ildefonso Pueblo, and that the Site-Wide Environmental
Impact Statement determines there is no greater impact on the Pueblo
than on other disadvantaged communities. Chestnut Law Offices states
that this approach in environmental justice analysis does not comply
with Federal law and is inadequate.
DOE prepared the environmental justice analysis in accordance with
guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality and Executive Order
12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations. The segments referred to in the
comments were used to identify and highlight the locations of low-
income and/or minority populations for the impact analyses. Using this
tool, the San Ildefonso Pueblo was identified as housing minority and/
or low-income populations for consideration in the Environmental
Justice analysis. DOE has not identified any disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental impacts on minority or low-
income populations under any of the alternatives analyzed in the Site-
Wide Environmental Impact Statement. To the extent that there is a
potential for adverse impacts, DOE analysis has shown that most of the
impact would affect all populations equally. In the cases of air
emissions and on-site transportation, the residential populations
nearest to LANL, which have a relatively low percentage of minority and
low-income populations, would be affected to a greater extent than
other populations within the 50-mile radius.
The impacts addressed in the environmental justice analysis in the
Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement include land resources,
geology, soils, water resources, ecological resources, air quality,
human health, waste management, socioeconomic, and transportation. This
analysis includes the projected impacts due to contamination in the
area from past LANL activities. As part of its human health impact
analysis, DOE looked at potential exposure through special pathways,
including ingestion of game animals, fish, native vegetation, surface
waters, sediments, and local produce; absorption of contaminants in
sediments through the skin; and inhalation of plant materials. For
LANL, the special pathways influence the environmental justice analysis
because some of these pathways are more important or viable to the
traditional or cultural practices of minority populations in the area.
Even considering these special pathways, DOE did not find
disproportionately high and adverse health impacts to minority or low-
income populations.
The Chestnut Law Offices' second concern is groundwater
contamination due to LANL activities. The Chestnut Law Offices states
that the final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement does not
address the recent groundwater contamination but downplays it, and that
this section of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement should be
re-evaluated.
DOE believes that drinking water quality in the Los Alamos area
continues to meet all Federal and New Mexico chemical and radiological
standards. In February 1999 DOE discovered, as part of implementing the
Hydrogeologic Workplan (the multi-year effort to characterize the flow
and extent of contamination of the main aquifer), high explosives
contamination while drilling a well (R-25) in the western part of the
Laboratory. Based on current knowledge, DOE believes it will take at
least 50 years for these contaminants to reach the drinking water
production wells approximately three and a half miles to the East of R-
25. DOE has and will continue to sample the drinking water to ensure it
is safe. Groundwater monitoring data from implementation of the
Hydrogeologic Workplan is still under review and evaluation. As new
information becomes available, the LANL Environmental Surveillance and
Compliance Program will be revised to incorporate the additional data.
Chestnut Law Offices' third concern is that the Site-Wide
Environmental Impact Statement does not consider the shutdown of the
low-level waste disposal area, Area G, a reasonable alternative. The
commentor states the alternatives in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact
Statement are based on the assumption that LANL will be a regional low-
level waste disposal site. The commentor believes the Site-Wide
Environmental Impact Statement does not analyze the possibility that
another site may be chosen as the regional low-level waste disposal
site, thereby providing the opportunity for the waste to be removed
from Area G. The commentor states this is a serious flaw since it does
not anticipate a clearly reasonable alternative in light of existing
planning documents.
The shutdown of the low-level waste disposal area, Area G, was not
considered a reasonable alternative for analysis in the Site-Wide
Environmental Impact Statement because Area G has a unique capability
for the disposal of certain wastes generated by LANL. Such wastes
include classified wastes and other wastes that would be difficult to
transport to other sites. The Expanded Operations Alternative was the
only alternative that analyzed the impacts of LANL being chosen as a
regional low-level waste disposal site.
Under the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement, which evaluated locations for treatment and disposal of low-
level radioactive waste and mixed low-level radioactive waste, these
wastes would be treated on the site at LANL and disposed of at a
regional site to be determined after consultation with stakeholders.
One of the potential regional disposal sites for low-level waste is
LANL. Therefore, in the Expanded Operations Alternative, the Site-Wide
Environmental Impact
[[Page 50803]]
Statement addressed treatment and disposal of LANL-generated low-level
waste, as well as disposal of off-site generated low-level waste. The
Expanded Operations Alternative analyzes the environmental impacts and
the footprint needed at Area G to allow for the implementation of this
alternative.
If LANL is not selected as a regional disposal site, some low-level
waste could be sent off-site for disposal, as reflected in the No
Action, Reduced, and Greener Alternatives. The current low-level waste
capacity available at Area G is limited. If LANL were selected as a
regional disposal site, the expansion of Area G would occur at the
fastest rate. If LANL continues to dispose of its own wastes, the
expansion would still occur, but at a slower rate. Currently LANL
generates some low-level waste that, primarily because of its size and
shape, does not meet the acceptance criteria for disposal at other DOE
sites, such as the Nevada Test Site. However, the decision as to the
ultimate treatment and disposal of low-level waste and mixed low-level
waste will be made in a Record of Decision for the Waste Management
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.
It should also be noted that the EPA, State of New Mexico, and
representatives of the Pueblos (four Accord Pueblos) near LANL were
invited to review and comment on the Classified Supplement for the
Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement (EPA declined the
invitation). Comments from that review were received shortly after the
final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement was issued. This final
Classified Supplement and all comments provided were considered in
reaching the decisions in this Record of Decision.
Other Decision Factors
As noted in the final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement,
LANL houses unique facilities and expertise that have been developed
over the past 50 years. These have served several National Security and
other national needs in the past. It is expected that, for the
foreseeable future, the U.S. will maintain a nuclear weapons stockpile
and require ``cutting edge'' science and manufacturing capabilities to
address issues of national importance for the maintenance of that
stockpile and for other purposes, including assuring the safety and
reliability of that stockpile. The unique facilities and expertise at
LANL are needed to assist in finding solutions to these issues. As
noted in the final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, LANL's
role in supporting DOE's missions has expanded as the DOE nuclear
weapons complex has been downsized over the last decade. Additionally,
it is expected that there will be continued emphasis on applying the
unique capabilities at LANL to support DOE's basic science mission and
to apply technologies developed in DOE laboratories to improve the U.S.
technological position and competitiveness. These factors were also
considered (in addition to the human health and environmental impact
information discussed above) in reaching this Record of Decision.
Decisions
DOE has decided to continue to operate LANL for the foreseeable
future and to expand the scope and level of its operations at LANL. DOE
is implementing the Preferred Alternative, that is Alternative 2,
Expanded Operations, but with pit production limited to a capacity that
can be accommodated within the limited space currently set aside for
this activity in the plutonium facility (estimated at nominally 20 pits
per year). This alternative reflects a broad expansion of science and
technology research, and applications of this research to a variety of
issues of national importance; this alternative also includes the
continued maintenance of existing and expanded capabilities, and
continued support/infrastructure activities. The following discussion
describes the major actions to be taken, with an emphasis on those
areas that have had the most extensive programmatic or public interest.
It should be noted that the decisions in this Record of Decision
will be reflected in DOE budget requests and management practices.
However, the actual implementation of these decisions is dependent on
DOE funding levels and allocations of DOE budget across competing
priorities.
Pit Production and Other Plutonium Operations
DOE remains committed to meeting pit production requirements to
support the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. As part of its
implementation of the Preferred Alternative, DOE will establish, over
time, a pit production capability at LANL with a capacity of nominally
20 pits per year; this decision reflects an intent to establish a pit
production capability at LANL within the existing floor space set aside
for this operation (about 11,400 ft \2\ [1060 m \2\]). This will
eliminate the need to transfer several Technical Area-55 plutonium
operations (to ``make room'' for pit production activities in Technical
Area-55) either to the CMR Building, or to newly constructed nuclear
space, as contemplated in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement.
Thus, the Preferred Alternative for Pit Production can be implemented
without an expansion of the plutonium operations floor space at LANL.
The exact production capacity of this floor space is not known with
certainty (pending process optimization studies), but has been
characterized as nominally 20 pits per year. This level provides
adequate capacity to meet the near-term pit production requirements to
maintain the enduring stockpile (about 20 pits per year), as expressed
in the Record of Decision for the Stockpile Stewardship and Management
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. While this does not change
the 50-pit-per-year mission assignment made in the Stockpile
Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Record of Decision, it does suspend full implementation of that
decision until an undetermined time in the future.
Implementation of the pit production mission at LANL will be
phased. The first pit for delivery to the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile will be made in 2001. It is expected that, through equipment
installation in existing facilities, the limited production capacity of
nominally 20 pits per year will be achieved in 2007. At these levels of
production, there is no need to move plutonium operations from the
Plutonium Facility, Technical Area-55, to the CMR Building, and there
is no need to construct a corridor between Technical Area-55 and
Technical Area-3. Thus, DOE has decided not to move these operations or
construct the road at this time.
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building--As the Site-Wide
Environmental Impact Statement was being prepared, DOE was working on
two sets of information associated with CMR operations: (1)
Establishment of a modern authorization basis for these operations
(referred to as the CMR Basis for Interim Operations, or BIO); and, (2)
studies of the seismicity of the Technical Area-55 and Technical Area-3
areas. Both sets of information are included in the impact analyses in
the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement (where details were not
known, the analyses in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement
were, in fact, bounding of the details determined through these
efforts). Through this effort, it became apparent that the subprojects
included in the CMR Upgrades Construction Project should be
reprioritized and oriented to provide for the continued safe operation
[[Page 50804]]
of the CMR Building through about 2010. The single most substantive
change in this project was to replace the proposed seismic upgrades
with a combination of material containerization, a reduction in the
amount of Material at Risk (or MAR, which is the amount of in-process
material that would be subject to release if there were a catastrophic
accident), and a substantial reduction in the amount of combustible
material allowed in the CMR Building. With these controls in place, the
worst-case plausible accidents involving the CMR Building would have
minimal effects on public health (effects would be within applicable
guidelines intended to protect human health).
The 1996 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement analyzed the environmental impacts of
locating a pit manufacturing capability at either LANL or the Savannah
River Site. In December 1996, DOE issued a Record of Decision
reestablishing the pit manufacturing mission at LANL. In August 1998,
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, while ruling in
DOE's favor in litigation challenging the adequacy of the Stockpile
Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,
directed DOE to take another look at certain new studies regarding
seismic hazards at LANL, and to provide a factual report and technical
analysis of the plausibility of a building-wide fire at LANL's
plutonium facility (PF-4 at Technical Area-55). The Court directed that
DOE prepare a Supplement Analysis, pursuant to DOE's NEPA regulations
(10 CFR 1021.314(c)), to help determine whether a supplemental
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement should be issued to address these studies. These seismic
studies have been released to the public and are examined in more
detail in the draft Supplement Analysis released for public review and
comment on July 1, 1999. On September 2, 1999, DOE issued a final
Supplement Analysis and determined that none of the issues analyzed in
the Supplement Analysis represents substantial changes to the actions
considered in the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement, nor do those issues provide significant
new information relevant to the environmental concerns discussed in
that Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore no
supplement to that Programmatic Environmental Statement is required.
Secondaries
While LANL was considered as a production site for secondaries
(components of a nuclear weapon that contains elements needed to
initiate the fusion reaction in a thermonuclear reaction) in the
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement, this mission was assigned to the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge,
Tennessee. However, DOE expects LANL to maintain an understanding of
secondary production technologies, as well as the characteristics of
War Reserve secondaries in the stockpile.
Tritium
LANL will continue to support both research and development and
production activities involving tritium (neutron tube target loading
for nuclear weapons stockpile components). These will include
development of new reservoirs and reservoir fill operations,
surveillance and performance testing on tritium components, tritium
recovery and purification technologies, and production operations
associated with neutron generator production for the stockpile. The
expansion of these activities results in: (1) tritium throughputs on an
annual basis increase by a factor of up to 2.5; and (2) the on-site
inventory of tritium increases by a factor of 10.
High Explosives Processing and Testing
Operations in this area will increase such that annual explosives
throughput will increase to about 82,700 pounds, and the annual mock
explosives throughput will increase to about 2,910. These quantities
include continued research, development, and fabrication of high-power
detonators, including support of up to 40 major product lines per year
in support of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management program. In
addition, the number of hydrodynamic tests will increase to about 100
per year; the annual amount of depleted uranium will increase to about
6,900 pounds.
Accelerator Operations
DOE will implement several facility construction or modification
projects at Technical Area-53: the Long-Pulse Spallation Source, the 5-
Megawatt Target/Blanket Experimental Area, the Dynamic Experiment
Laboratory, and the Isotope Production Facility.
Expansion of Technical Area-54/Area G Low-Level Waste Disposal Area
As part of the implementation of the Preferred Alternative, DOE
will continue the on-site disposal of LANL generated low-level waste
using the existing footprint at Area G low-level waste disposal area
and will expand disposal capacity into Zones 4 and 6 at Area G (this
expansion would cover up to 72 acres [29 hectares]). DOE will develop
both Zones 4 and 6 in a step-wise fashion, expanding these areas as
demand requires.
Mitigation Measures
The Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement included a discussion
of existing programs and plans and controls built into the operations
at LANL, including operating within applicable regulations, DOE Orders,
contractual requirements and approved policies and procedures. The
following discussion outlines the mitigation measures that DOE will
undertake to reduce the impacts of continuing to operate LANL at the
levels outlined in this Record of Decision.
Electrical Power
The Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement recognizes the need
for an increase in electrical power supply and reliability under the
Preferred Alternative as well as other alternatives analyzed. The
impact analyses emphasize the severity of these issues and consequences
if they are not resolved, e.g., brownouts. Solutions to power supply
issues are essential to mitigate the effects of power demand under all
alternatives. An operating plan for improved load monitoring, equipment
upgrades, and optimization of some available power sources was
discussed. Additional measures under consideration by DOE include: (1)
Limiting operation of large users of electricity to periods of low
demand, and contractual mechanisms to bring additional electric power
to the region and some form of on-site cogeneration as an incremental
resource. DOE and other users of electrical power in the area have been
working with suppliers to resolve these foreseeable power and
reliability issues. One solution under consideration for improved
reliability is the provision of a third power line from the existing
Public Service Company of New Mexico Norton substation to the existing
LANL substations. This solution could include a new LANL substation. In
any case, DOE is committed to manage electric power demands to prevent
periods of brownouts by adjusting to the limitations of available power
until a solution for a long-term increase in power is in place. DOE is
also committed to approve and begin implementing a Utility Procurement
Plan by November 1999.
[[Page 50805]]
Water Supply and Demand
Prior to September 8, 1998, DOE supplied all potable water for
LANL, Bandelier National Monument, and Los Alamos County, including the
towns of Los Alamos and White Rock. This water was derived from DOE's
groundwater right to withdraw 5,541.3 acre-feet or about 1,806 million
gallons of water per year from the main aquifer. On this date, DOE
leased these rights to the County of Los Alamos. This lease also
included DOE's contracted annual right obtained in 1976 to 1,200 acre-
feet of San Juan-Chama Transmountain Diversion Project water. This
lease agreement is effective for three years, at which point DOE
expects to convey 70 percent of the water right to the County of Los
Alamos and lease the remaining 30 percent to them. The San Juan-Chama
rights will be transferred in their entirety to the County. On several
occasions since 1986 through 1998, LANL operations have exceeded 30
percent of the total DOE annual water right. The agreement between DOE
and the County does not preclude provision of additional waters in
excess of the 30 percent agreement, if available. However, the
agreement also states that should the County be unable to provide water
to its customers, the County shall be entitled to reduce water services
to DOE in an amount equal to the water rights deficit.
DOE is committed to managing water demand to prevent exceedances of
DOE water rights. LANL will develop and implement by June 2000
procedures to assure that all new projects will implement water
conservation design and techniques. LANL will also develop water
conservation goals and begin implementing them by October 2001.
Waste Management
DOE is committed to the proper management and minimization of all
wastes. LANL will integrate waste minimization into Integrated Safety
Management by October 2000. By June 2000 LANL will develop and
implement procedures to assure that all new projects will implement
waste minimization for TRU and mixed TRU waste streams. In addition
LANL will reduce by December 2005 waste from routine operations by 80%
using 1993 as a baseline for hazardous, low-level radioactive, and
mixed low-level radioactive wastes. Also, LANL will recycle 40% of
sanitary waste from routine operations by December 2005.
LANL will also purchase EPA-designated items with recycled content
according to the conditions of Executive Order 12873. A LANL
Implementing Requirement for waste minimization activities is currently
in draft.
Wildfire
The final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement included an
accident scenario from a wildfire that was initiated on land adjacent
to LANL and spread to the LANL site. The analysis concluded that a
major fire is not only credible but also likely. The current and future
risks of wildfires at LANL can only be mitigated through purposeful
environmental intervention and active land management. LANL will
develop by December 1999 a preliminary program plan for comprehensive
wildfire mitigation, including construction and maintenance of
strategic fire roads and fire breaks, creation of defensible space
surrounding key facilities, and active forest management to reduce fuel
loadings. LANL will prepare and begin implementation of a long-term
strategy for wildfire mitigation actions before the start of the 2000
fire season.
Cultural Resources
DOE is committed through ongoing consultation processes with
affected Native American tribes to ensure protection of cultural
resources and sites of cultural, historic, or religious importance to
the tribes. With input from the tribes participating in the Los Alamos
Pueblos Project (LAPP), DOE will develop a strategy to increase the
understanding of traditional cultural properties at LANL, to determine
strategies for the long-term management of identified traditional
cultural properties and sacred sites and to determine appropriate
mitigation measures for specific traditional cultural properties. The
strategies could include the development of access agreements to
traditional cultural properties and sacred sites. In the past, attempts
to identify specific traditional cultural properties at LANL have
encountered concerns from traditional groups because of the potential
for increased risk to these resources if they are individually
identified; thus, DOE will explore the potential benefits and risks of
such a study, and options to such a study, with the LAPP tribes. This
approach is intended to ensure appropriate respect and consideration
regarding cultural concerns, while attempting to provide the
information and ability to mitigate or avoid potential impacts to
traditional cultural properties (which are currently not specifically
known, to a large extent). The goal of the consultation and
coordination would be an agreement with the relevant Native American
tribes for the management of these resources.
DOE will complete an Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan
(ICRMP) by April 2002. The ICRMP will detail how LANL will manage,
preserve, and protect cultural resources within the scope of Federal
and State laws, regulations, Executive Orders, standards, as well as to
the extent practicable, follow Tribal criteria and guidelines. The
ICRMP will provide a basis for a unified approach to address the
multiplicity of cultural resources located on LANL lands. The plan will
serve to streamline many of the administrative steps required by
Federal and State laws and regulations. The scope of activities for the
ICRMP would include development of the plan, completion of surveys of
archeological resources and historic buildings, and implementation of
long-term monitoring.
Natural Resources
DOE will develop and begin implementation of an integrated Natural
Resources Management Plan (NRMP) by October 2002, which will integrate
the principles of ecosystem management into the critical missions of
LANL to conserve ecosystem processes and biodiversity. The NRMP will
support DOE's policy to manage all of its land and facilities as
valuable national resources. This stewardship will integrate LANL's
mission and operations with its biological, water, soil, and air
resources in a comprehensive plan that will guide land and facility use
decisions. The plan will consider the site's larger regional context
and be developed in consultation with regional land managing agencies
and owners (particularly Bandelier National Monument, Santa Fe National
Forest, and Native American Pueblos), State agencies, and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. This cooperative effort will ensure a consistent,
integrated, and structured approach to regional natural resource
management.
The NRMP is viewed as a sequenced planning document that will
include specific tasks and studies as part of the process of
development. It will include new initiatives as well as integrating
ongoing programs, plans, and activities at LANL, some of which may be
reassessed to ensure their contribution to the goals and objectives of
integrated ecosystem management.
Mitigation Action Plan
In accordance with 10 CFR 1021.331, DOE is preparing a Mitigation
Action Plan that will identify specific actions
[[Page 50806]]
needed to implement these mitigation measures and provide schedules for
completion. These mitigation measures represent all practicable means
to avoid or minimize harm from the alternative selected.
Conclusion
DOE has considered environmental impacts, stakeholder concerns, and
National policy in its decisions regarding the management and use of
LANL. The analysis contained in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact
Statement is both programmatic and site specific in detail. It is
programmatic from the broad multi-use facility management perspective
and site specific in the detailed project and program activity
analysis. The impacts identified in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact
Statement were based on conservative estimates and assumptions. In this
regard, the analyses bound the impacts of the alternatives evaluated in
the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement. The Expanded Operations
Alternative was defined to include activities to implement the
programmatic decisions made or that may be made as a result of other
DOE Environmental Impact Statements (some of which are currently in
progress). This Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement and the
analyses it contains can be used to support these future programmatic
or project decisions.
In accordance with the provisions of NEPA, its implementing
procedures and regulations, and DOE's NEPA regulations, I have
considered the information contained within the Site-Wide Environmental
Impact Statement, including the classified supplement and public
comments received in response to the final Site-Wide Environmental
Impact Statement. Being fully apprised of the environmental
consequences of the alternatives and other decision factors described
above, I have decided to continue and expand the use of LANL and its
resources as described. This will enhance DOE's ability to meet its
primary National security mission responsibility and create an
environment that fosters technological innovation in both the public
and private sectors.
Issued at Washington, DC, September 13, 1999.
Thomas F. Gioconda,
Brigadier General, USAF, Acting Assistant Secretary for Defense
Programs.
[FR Doc. 99-24456 Filed 9-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P