[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19532]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, Los Alamos National
Laboratory
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Intent to Prepare a Site-Wide Environmental
Impact Statement for Continued Operations of the Los Alamos National
Laboratory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is providing
advance notice of its intent to prepare a Site-Wide Environmental
Impact Statement (SWEIS) for its Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL),
Los Alamos, New Mexico, a DOE multipurpose research and development
laboratory. The SWEIS will be prepared pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.], the
Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations [40 CFR Parts 1500-
1508] and the DOE NEPA regulations [10 CFR Part 1021]. The SWEIS will
analyze the potential environmental impacts of continuing to operate
LANL and reasonable alternative operating envelopes.
With this Advance Notice, DOE initiates a prescoping process to
identify possible issues and alternatives to be analyzed in the SWEIS.
As provided at 10 CFR 1021.311(b), this Advance Notice provides an
early opportunity to inform the public of the SWEIS and to solicit
early public comments. After this prescoping process, DOE will publish
a Notice of Intent (NOI) which will identify the proposed scope of the
SWEIS, including the proposed alternatives and issues developed through
this prescoping process. Although schedules have not yet been
developed, it is DOE's intent to start the full SWEIS process as soon
as possible and complete the process as quickly as possible. The public
is invited to comment on this Advance Notice and to attend public
information meetings and workshops addressing SWEIS issues.
DATES: Written comments on the scope of the SWEIS are invited from the
public. Prescoping comments should be postmarked by October 31, 1994.
The Department will again invite comments on the scope of the SWEIS
after the NOI is published.
The Department will hold public information meetings and workshops
in conjunction with prescoping. These will be held at various places in
northern New Mexico. The times, dates, and format of these meetings
will be announced in the local press no later than two weeks prior to
the meetings and publicized in other ways as appropriate.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the SWEIS or other matters
concerning the SWEIS, or requests to be put on a mailing list for
future information about the SWEIS, should be addressed to: M. Diana
Webb, Los Alamos Area Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 528 35th
Street, Los Alamos, NM 87544, Attn: LANL SWEIS, (505) 665-6353,
Facsimile (505) 665-4504.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the DOE
NEPA process, please contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of
NEPA Oversight, EH-25, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (800) 472-2756 or (202) 586-4600.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
About the SWEIS. The Department has a policy to prepare SWEISs for
large, multi-facility DOE sites [10 CFR 1021.330], such as LANL. The
purpose of a SWEIS is to provide DOE and its stakeholders with a
comprehensive look at the environmental impacts caused by its
operations and activities at a site. The NEPA process allows for
Federal, State, tribal, county, municipal and public participation in
the environmental review and resultant decisionmaking process. A SWEIS
was last prepared for LANL in 1979 [DOE/EIS-0018]. The planned SWEIS
would replace that document.
A SWEIS is a useful tool for DOE to manage its facilities and
operations. It provides the DOE decisionmakers, site management, and
the public with comprehensive information on the cumulative impact of
past, ongoing and planned activities at a site in order to plan for
quality stewardship of the resources entrusted to DOE's care. A SWEIS
can be used to establish an environmentally-sound operating envelope
for site activities and establish thresholds of significance to
identify future environmental impacts. The SWEIS is expected to support
later NEPA reviews 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 generally provide adequate NEPA coverage for those
activities and projects covered by the SWEIS. However, a SWEIS may not
replace the need for future, project-specific NEPA reviews as future
proposals for LANL facilities are developed. 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 should be revised.
Site-wide Analysis. The SWEIS will address operations and planned
activities at LANL foreseen within the next 5 to 10 years. The SWEIS
will focus on operating practices and facility management; DOE does not
expect to be able to anticipate all future research and development
projects that LANL may be called upon to support over the next ten
years. The Department anticipates that the SWEIS will provide an
analysis of all activities at LANL and all DOE land management
activities related to operations at LANL. The SWEIS will also examine
DOE's ongoing obligations to the surrounding community under the Atomic
Energy Communities Act [42 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.], including proposals to
transfer certain tracts of DOE-administered land to Los Alamos County.
The Department intends to use the SWEIS to develop: mitigation measures
for operating and facilities management practices; a nuclear materials
storage and handling strategy; a waste management strategy; an
environmental restoration strategy; and a land transfer strategy for
LANL. The SWEIS will include an analysis of the impacts of operating
all major facilities at LANL. Specific research projects or facility
proposals that are not included within the SWEIS analysis would be
subject to project-specific NEPA reviews.
Los Alamos National Laboratory's mission. The Department
coordinates and administers the energy functions of the Federal
government. Among other things, it is responsible for the nuclear
weapons program, research and development of energy technologies, and
basic science research. The Laboratory 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 science research. In addition to work done in
support of DOE programs, LANL provides research and science services
for other Federal agencies, universities, foreign countries, and
private industry. The Laboratory is one of the largest multiprogram
research laboratories in the world, with an annual budget of about $1
billion and about 10,000 contractor and sub-contractor employees. The
Laboratory covers about 43 square miles of Federal land in north-
central New Mexico in Los Alamos and Santa Fe Counties.
The Secretary of Energy has initiated an independent review to
provide recommendations on the future missions of all DOE Laboratories.
The SWEIS will incorporate any recommendations accepted by DOE
regarding the future missions of LANL.
Related NEPA reviews. Currently, certain of LANL's mission elements
are being considered in several other broad-scale NEPA reviews. In
addition, about 20 proposed projects at LANL are in the process of
having either an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) prepared.
The Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programmatic EIS
(PEIS) [Notice of Intent, 55 FR 42633] will analyze the DOE plan to
formulate and implement an integrated Environmental Management program.
The Laboratory is one of the alternative sites proposed to store and
process transuranic radioactive waste and store, process, and provide
on-site disposal for low-level radioactive waste, possibly including
material generated at locations other than LANL.
The Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration PEIS [revised Notice of
Intent, 56 FR 39528] analyzes alternatives for the reconfiguration of
the weapons complex due to nuclear weapons stockpile reductions. The
Department currently is considering how the scope of this PEIS should
be revised further to reflect more recent budget and stockpile
reduction decisions. At this time, the Reconfiguration PEIS and its
related decisions are not expected to change the weapons mission at
LANL.
The Advanced Neutron Source EIS analyzes the siting, construction
and operation of a research nuclear reactor [Notice of Intent, 58 FR
31019]. The Laboratory is being considered as an alternative to the
preferred site at DOE's Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee.
The Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and INEL
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs EIS includes a
programmatic analysis of transporting, processing, and storing spent
nuclear reactor fuel [Notice of Availability, Draft EIS, 59 FR 32688].
The Laboratory has generated spent fuel and continues to temporarily
store this material pending the outcome of programmatic decisions
following the spent fuel EIS.
The Department is preparing a site-wide EIS for all activities at
its Pantex Plant, near Amarillo, Texas [Notice of Intent, 59 FR 26635].
The primary mission of this facility is disassembly of nuclear weapons.
The Pantex site-wide EIS will also take a programmatic look at storing
disassembled nuclear weapons components. The Laboratory disassembles
and temporarily stores radioisotopic thermoelectric generators
(radioactive heat sources) that have been removed from retired weapons
and could be considered as an alternative site for other components.
The Department is preparing a PEIS for Storage and Disposition of
Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials [Notice of Intent, 59 FR 31985]. The
PEIS will analyze alternatives for the long-term storage and
disposition of surplus nuclear materials in order to minimize the risk
of proliferation of nuclear weapons capability in the world. Phase I of
the project will be to provide safe, controlled, inspectable interim
storage. As part of this phase, DOE is performing a vulnerability study
to determine the risks associated with current storage of nuclear
materials. Phase II will be long-term storage or disposition of surplus
material. Among other things, the PEIS will analyze a new, consolidated
long-term storage facility at five candidate sites (LANL is not a
candidate site), and continued use of interim storage facilities. The
Laboratory now stores some nuclear materials.
The Department is preparing a programmatic EA on its proposal to
produce medical isotopes for medical applications such as diagnostics
and chemotherapy [EA determination, 02/24/93]. The proposal involves
irradiating targets in a nuclear reactor, processing the material, and
disposing of waste. The original proposal was to use the Omega West
Reactor at LANL to produce the isotopes. Since that time, DOE has
decided to permanently shut down that reactor, and it would not be used
for this purpose. Alternatives currently under consideration involving
LANL facilities would include fabricating targets at the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Building, processing and recycling irradiated
material at that facility, and disposing of low-level radioactive waste
at LANL's waste management area.
Besides these broad-scale NEPA documents, DOE is in the process of
conducting several environmental analyses for specific proposed
projects at LANL or has made preliminary plans to start such reviews.
Through this prescoping process, the public is invited to comment as to
whether the NEPA reviews listed in Tables 1 and 2 should precede, be
incorporated into, or be deferred until after the SWEIS. In accordance
with requests from the State, tribes, and the public, DOE invites
public comment as to which of these ongoing NEPA reviews should be
included within the scope of alternatives to be analyzed in the SWEIS.
Specifically, as requested by the public, DOE invites comments to
assist in determining either: (1) The project has independent
justification and would not prejudice the outcome of the SWEIS, and the
NEPA review can proceed; (2) the project is integral to alternatives to
be analyzed in the SWEIS, and the NEPA review will be included in the
SWEIS; or (3) the project depends on the outcome of the SWEIS, and the
NEPA review will be deferred until after the SWEIS is completed.
These projects and DOE's initial recommendations are listed in
Table 1. For a few projects, DOE does not make an initial
recommendation but will develop its recommendation after considering
public comment. Table 1 also provides information on the DOE program
which sponsors the proposals and the date of the determination of the
initial level of NEPA review. The Department may initiate other
projects while the SWEIS is being prepared; Table 2 lists planned
projects for which DOE believes NEPA reviews may be needed prior to
completion of the SWEIS but has not yet issued a NEPA determination.
The public is invited to comment on whether these NEPA reviews should
proceed independently of the SWEIS, or should be included in the SWEIS
analysis. The NOI will summarize comments received, explain whether or
not DOE proposes to continue with any of these NEPA reviews, and
describe their relationship to the alternatives suggested in the NOI.
Issues and alternatives. The Department has not yet identified
environmental issues or suggested alternatives for the SWEIS. These
will be developed over the next few months through the prescoping
process with the assistance of stakeholder involvement. The Department
anticipates that alternatives will be issue-driven to allow
alternatives to focus on activities or operations which are of concern
(``at issue'') to the agency or the public. The SWEIS would not analyze
alternatives to current practices for which neither the agency nor the
public have identified any concerns.
The SWEIS will look at reasonable alternatives to the current
situation. The public is specifically invited to comment on whether
analysis of an alternative which would describe phasing out all LANL
operations and eventually decommissioning all facilities (a ``shutdown
alternative'') would be useful for comparison to ongoing activities.
In 1976, LANL was designated as one of four National Environmental
Research Parks (NERPs). The NERPs were established to contribute to the
understanding of how people can live in balance with nature while
enjoying the benefits of technology. The Department has never
instituted an active management plan for the LANL NERP. The public is
specifically invited to comment on whether the SWEIS should contain
alternatives for managing the NERP or whether the designation should be
lifted.
The NEPA process. The DOE NEPA review process is described in the
Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations [40 CFR Parts 1500-
1508] and the DOE NEPA regulations [10 CFR Part 1021]. Through NEPA,
Congress requires that Federal agencies consider environmental impacts
when making decisions and lay the decisionmaking process open to public
scrutiny. An EIS documents the environmental review of major Federal
actions which may significantly affect the human environment; an EA may
be used to determine the need for an EIS or to document that no
significant environmental impacts would be expected to occur.
The EIS process begins with publication of a NOI to solicit public
comments to assist in determining the scope of analysis in the EIS [40
CFR 1501.7; 10 CFR 1021.311]. The Department documents the results of
the scoping process and its plans on how to conduct the EIS review in
an Implementation Plan [10 CFR 1021.312]. An agency publishes a draft
EIS to gain public input into the environmental analysis before a final
EIS is issued [40 CFR 1502.9; 10 CFR 1021.313]. An agency issues a
Record of Decision (ROD) to document its decision and to explain how
the environmental considerations documented in the EIS were balanced
against other factors which led to the decision, such as technical,
regulatory, or financial considerations [40 CFR 1505.2; 10 CFR
1021.315].
A PEIS is a broad-scale analysis of proposed programs or policies
[40 CFR 1502.4(b)], including proposals with geographically connected
actions [40 CFR 1502.4(c)(1)]. A SWEIS is a specific type of PEIS used
to analyze connected actions at a DOE site [10 CFR 1021.330]. An agency
follows the same steps to prepare a SWEIS as for an EIS.
Classified material. The Department will review classified material
while preparing the SWEIS. Within the limits of classification, DOE
will provide to the public as much information as possible. If
necessary, classified information will be segregated into a classified
appendix.
Public involvement opportunities. The Department will conduct
prescoping over the next few months. The results of prescoping will be
provided in the NOI. Through this Advance Notice, DOE asks other
Federal agencies, the State, tribal governments, local governments, and
the general public to assist in identifying the scope of analysis for
the SWEIS, including suggestions on issues, alternatives, and other
topics of interest. As part of the prescoping process, DOE will hold a
series of public information meetings and workshops, and provide other
opportunities for public involvement. These will be publicized in local
media at least two weeks in advance. Other Federal agencies, which
perform work at LANL or manage land that might be affected by LANL
activities, will be consulted about the SWEIS. Information briefings
will be given to the State, affected tribes, and local governments.
Other parties with an interest in LANL's operations, such as private
companies having industrial partnerships with LANL, will be advised of
the SWEIS process. The Department invites stakeholders to submit
written comments on the content of the SWEIS and suggestions on the
SWEIS review process, including suggestions for the conduct or format
of public involvement opportunities, to the address given above.
Comments received prior to October 31, 1994, will be considered in
developing the proposed issues and alternatives for the NOI.
The NOI will explain how comments and issues raised in the
prescoping process have been incorporated into the suggested
alternatives and issues identified in that Notice. Publication of the
NOI will be followed by a second invitation to comment, public
information meetings and workshops, and formal public scoping meetings.
The results of the scoping process will be documented in an
Implementation Plan which will be made available to the public. Other
Federal agencies, the State, tribes, local governments, and the public
will be given the opportunity to review and comment on the draft SWEIS
and participate in public hearings. A final SWEIS will be prepared
which will explain how public comments on the draft were considered.
Following the final SWEIS, DOE intends to issue a ROD to document DOE's
decisions regarding the operation of LANL and explain the measures
identified to mitigate any adverse impacts.
Copies of written comments, summaries of prescoping public
meetings, and other materials pertaining to the development and
analysis of the SWEIS will be made available for public review at the
Los Alamos National Laboratory Community Reading Room, 1450 Central
Ave., Suite 101, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544. For information on the
availability of specific documents and hours of operation, please
contact the reading room at (505) 665-2127 or (800) 543-2342.
Signed in Washington D.C. this 4th day of August, 1994, for the
United States Department of Energy.
Tara O'Toole, M.D., M.P.H.
Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.
Table 1.--Recommendations for Ongoing NEPA Reviews
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE program sponsor/ Discussion, initial
Title, summary NEPA determ. date recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATEMENTS (EISs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radioactive Liquid EM 02/08/93............ Discussion: The
Wastewater Treatment existing wastewater
Facility, TA-63. treatment facility,
Proposed facility completed in 1963, is
would replace existing still able to be
30-year-old wastewater operated safely and
treatment facility reliably for a few
which has reached the more years, although
end of its design life. design standards have
changed considerably
since that time. It
is possible that
certain design
details, such as
wastewater stream
source and type, may
depend on sitewide
decisions regarding
the location and use
of other facilities
at LANL. Detailed
design for a
replacement facility
cannot be started
until the NEPA review
is completed, which
in turn would affect
construction
schedules. Initial
Recommendation:
Include in the SWEIS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS (EAs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemistry and DP 09/13/93............ Discussion: CMR first
Metallurgy Research operated in 1952.
(CMR) Building Since then,
Upgrades, TA-3. Part environmental, safety
of a series of and security design
proposed and operating
infrastructure requirements have
renovations to a 40- changed. Utility and
year-old facility used infrastructure
for various research systems at CMR have
projects. CMR supports aged and need to be
activities in several replaced. Although
other LANL facilities. current operations in
The purpose of the CMR are conducted in
upgrades is to reduce a way that protects
risk, enhance the the safety of
safety margin, and workers, the public
provide for the and the environment,
continued safe, some utility and
reliable, and infrastructure
effective use of the upgrades would allow
facility to support CMR operations to
LANL missions for at more closely adhere
least another 20 to 30 to current
years. Some environmental,
renovations were safety, and health
covered by prior NEPA requirements. These
review and are include improving or
currently underway. replacing the
building's
structural,
ventilation,
electrical, facility
monitoring, waste
management, and
security systems.
Another element of
the CMR upgrade
projects would
refurbish Wings 2 and
4 at CMR, to
accommodate LANL
program needs. If the
upgrades were
deferred until after
the SWEIS, CMR would
continue to be used
but would also
continue to
deteriorate as the
building systems
aged. Initial
Recommendation:
Analyze in the EA
those components of
the proposed upgrades
that are needed to
maintain the existing
operation
infrastructure,
improve safety of
operations to workers
and the general
public, enhance CMR
environmental
management systems,
and provide for
improved security.
Include in the SWEIS
the remainder of the
proposed CMR upgrades
which relate to long-
term programmatic
needs, including
refurbishing Wings 2
and 4.
High Explosives DP 03/10/92............ Discussion: This is a
Materials Test small-scale
Facility, TA-11. construction project
Proposed construction to consolidate
and operation of a new ongoing activities at
3,000 square-foot LANL and would not
building for increase LANL's
mechanical and thermal existing testing
tests on high program. If
explosive materials constructing the
and related assemblies building were
in support of DOE's deferred until after
science-based the SWEIS, testing
stockpile stewardship and evaluation would
program. The proposal continue in the
would consolidate in existing facilities.
one building the high Further deterioration
explosives work now of the existing
done in several buildings could
locations at LANL; the disrupt the
existing facilities evaluation program
have deteriorated and create
substantially and are uncertainty in LANL's
inadequate to reliably ability to safely and
support current needs. reliably test high
LANL has an ongoing explosives materials.
mission to evaluate A decision to
aging weapons to construct this
ensure that the building would not
enduring nuclear influence, nor be
weapons stockpile influenced by,
remains safe and sitewide decisions.
reliable; therefore, Initial
LANL must maintain the recommendation:
capability to assure Proceed with EA.
the continuity and
reliability of
evaluation tests and
the safety of workers
performing those tests.
Isotope Separator DP 12/10/92............ Discussion: NEPA
Facility, TA-48. review of this
Proposed 4,000-square- project is not needed
foot laboratory at this time. Initial
facility to develop Recommendation: Defer
pure samples of until after SWEIS.
isotopes to be used as
standards for weapons
and non-weapons
research. This project
has been deferred.
Low Energy Accelerator DP 08/23/92............ Discussion: This is a
Laboratory (LEAL), TA- small-scale
53 (formerly construction project
Accelerator Prototype to support ongoing
Laboratory). Proposed research. If
7,000-square-foot constructing the
laboratory to support building is deferred
development of proton until after the
accelerators for SWEIS, the research
ongoing programs. The would continue in
low-energy, high- existing buildings if
current front end space allowed. A
accelerator prototype decision to construct
would be housed and this building would
operated in this not influence, nor be
proposed building. influenced by,
sitewide decisions.
Initial
Recommendation:
Proceed with EA.
Nuclear Materials DP 08/10/93............ Discussion: The 1986
Storage Facility EA analyzed
Upgrade, TA-55 constructing and
(Revision to 1986 EA). operating the
The 1986 EA covers existing vault to
actions currently consolidate nuclear
needed to correct material storage at
identified design and LANL. The proposal
construction was revised in 1993
deficiencies. The to allow for
revised proposal is to increased storage
increase the storage capability in the
capacity of an vault; the NEPA
existing nuclear determination was to
materials storage revise the 1986 EA to
vault from about 6.6 provide the NEPA
metric tons of review for the
plutonium to about 25 increased capacity.
metric tons (LANL's If the revised NEPA
current inventory is review were to
about 2.6 metric proceed, DOE could
tons), with a make an early
corresponding increase decision on whether
in heat removal to increase the
capability from 20 storage capability of
kilowatts to 75 the existing vault.
kilowatts. The This would be
proposed upgrades necessary if, prior
would also allow to completing
storage of material sitewide decisions,
that generates more DOE needed to store
heat due to at LANL more
radioactive decay. material, or
different types of
material, than is now
on-site or
anticipated under
current mission
workloads. If a
decision to increase
the capacity were
deferred until after
the SWEIS, DOE and
LANL could continue
to work towards
correcting design and
construction
deficiencies but
could not undertake
work that would lead
to increased storage
capacity. The SWEIS
will be used to help
develop a nuclear
materials storage and
handling strategy,
which would include
projections of
amounts of material
anticipated to be on
site if LANL's
weapons mission
changed; sitewide
decisions could
influence decisions
on the future use and
capacity of the
vault. Initial
Recommendation:
Include in SWEIS the
proposal to increase
the vault's capacity
as part of nuclear
materials storage and
handling strategy.
Work to correct
existing design and
construction
deficiencies would
continue.
Safety Testing of Pits DP 06/02/93............ Discussion: This is a
Under Thermal Stress, small-scale project
CMR Building, TA-3 that would not
(formerly Fire require construction
Resistant Pit Test of a new facility. It
Program). Proposed is not connected to
experiments to ensure the infrastructure
that the enduring upgrades at CMR. If
nuclear weapons the test is deferred
stockpile is safe and until after the
would not cause SWEIS, some existing
environmental or uncertainties
health problems in the regarding the safety
event of a fire. The of the nuclear
project would require weapons in the
minor modifications to enduring stockpile
one of the hot cells would remain
at CMR, but would not unresolved. A
require construction decision to conduct
of any new facilities. this test would not
The tests would be on influence, nor be
disarmed nuclear influenced by,
weapons devices (pits) sitewide decisions.
to determine the Initial
potential for Recommendation:
materials failure Proceed with EA.
under fire conditions.
LANL has an ongoing
mission to evaluate
weapons to ensure that
the enduring nuclear
weapons stockpile
remains safe and
reliable.
Transuranic Waste Drum DP 06/11/91............ Discussion: This is a
Staging Building, TA- small-scale project
55. Proposal to that would not
convert an existing require construction
1,000 square-foot of new facilities. If
building within the the project were
Plutonium Facility to deferred until after
temporarily stage the SWEIS, waste
transuranic waste could continue to be
pending transportation stored in laboratory
to LANL's radioactive space. A decision to
waste management area proceed with this
at TA-54. modification would
not influence, nor be
influenced by,
sitewide decisions.
Initial
Recommendation:
Proceed with EA.
Weapons Components Test DP 12/25/92............ Discussion: This is a
Facility Relocation, small-scale project
TA-16. Proposal to that would not
relocate a test shop require construction
to a nearby 11,000- of a new facility. If
square-foot area now the project were
used as a warehouse. deferred until after
The shop is used for the SWEIS, the same
materials tests on testing operations
weapons components and would continue in the
for non-weapons existing space, but
structural tests. A the proposed
new hydraulic load- hydraulic press could
test machine press not be installed. A
would be installed, decision to proceed
and a small addition with this
built to house modification would
hydraulic pumps. not influence, nor be
influenced by,
sitewide decision.
Initial
Recommendation:
Proceed with EA.
Decontaminate, DP/EM 11/04/91......... Discussion: This
Decommission and facility has not
Demolish (DD&D) operated since 1991.
Building 86, High The immediate safety
Pressure Tritium hazard was the
Laboratory, TA-33. removal of tritium-
Proposed demolition of contaminated
a 40-year-old tritium- equipment, which is
contaminated building being accomplished.
after removing tritium- There is no immediate
contaminated need to perform DD&D,
equipment. Tritium and this action would
inventory and produce potentially
equipment removal were contaminated building
covered under a rubble that would
separate NEPA review have to be disposed
and are currently of. Initial
underway. The building Recommendation:
is being monitored to Include in the SWEIS
determine residual the remaining DD&D to
tritium levels. Future help determine
DD&D of the building potential waste
would be done under volumes for future
the EM program, but disposal.
the facility currently
remains under DP
management.
New Sanitary Landfill. DP/EM 05/09/91......... Discussion: A decision
Proposal to locate, on where to locate
construct, and operate the new landfill and
a new sanitary how much capacity it
landfill at LANL. should have would
depend on sitewide
decisions regarding
other facilities and
a waste management
strategy. Initial
Recommendation:
Include in SWEIS.
Actinide Source Term EM 12/09/92............ Discussion: This is a
Waste Test Program, small-scale project
CMR Building, TA-3. that would not
Proposal to conduct require construction
tests to determine of a new facility. It
under controlled is not connected to
conditions how the infrastructure
actinides (radioactive upgrades at CMR. If
elements) behave when the test program is
exposed to brine. This deferred until after
test will be used to the SWEIS, existing
provide information uncertainties
important to the regarding the
decision on whether or performance of WIPP
not to operate the would remain
Waste Isolation Pilot unresolved and the
Plant (WIPP) in schedule for
Carlsbad, New Mexico. completing the
The test results are performance
needed by 12/95 to assessment would not
complete the WIPP be met. A decision to
performance conduct this test
assessment; to meet would not influence,
this schedule, tests nor be influenced by,
must begin in 1994. sitewide decisions.
Initial
Recommendation:
Proceed with EA.
Controlled Air EM 10/20/90............ Discussion: The
Incinerator, Expanded Controlled Air
Operations, TA-50. Incinerator has
Proposal to use an undergone extensive
existing incinerator safety and
to treat environmental environmental
restoration and upgrades to support
operational waste converting the
generated at various facility's mission
areas of LANL. The from a research and
incinerator has development facility
previously been to an operational
permitted and has facility in support
operated a total of of treating both
2,607 hours over 15 hazardous and mixed
years as a research waste. The SWEIS will
and development be used to develop a
facility. Incinerating waste management
waste destroys toxic strategy; analyzing
organic constituents impacts of
and generally reduces incinerating
waste volume operational waste
dramatically. could be an important
Incineration is a element of that
recommended best strategy. Initial
demonstrated available Recommendation:
technology within Include treatment
environmental operation of the
statutes. DOE has a incinerator in SWEIS.
milestone to complete DOE makes no
a trial burn by 02/13/ recommendation
95 under its Federal whether work would
Facility Compliance continue to conduct a
Agreement with the trial burn as
Environmental required by the
Protection Agency Federal Facility
(EPA). If the trial Compliance Agreement.
burn is successful, DOE will continue to
DOE and the EPA will work with regulators
develop a plan for and the public to
additional milestones. determine the
appropriate
activities for the
Controlled Air
Incinerator.
Expansion of Area G, EM 10/20/90............ Discussion: The
Radioactive Waste original proposal
Disposal Site, TA-54. would provide long-
Proposal to expand an term, large-scale
existing 63-acre low- expansion of the
level radioactive waste disposal area.
waste management area Some expansion of
which is anticipated LANL's waste handling
to reach capacity in 3 capacity would be
to 5 years. The needed in 3 to 5
original proposal was years to accommodate
to expand by an environmental
additional 70 acres to restoration, D&D, and
provide an additional other operational
20 years of disposal waste. It is not
capability; a smaller clear at this time
30-acre area is also what the projected
considered, as well as volumes of waste
a 5-acre area that might be over the
would provide disposal next 20 years. LANL
capability for up to 8 is increasing waste
years. There are no minimization efforts
archeological sites in and it is possible
the 5-acre area. that site missions
could change; the
sitewide analysis
will help develop
projections of waste
volume and type. The
smaller, 5-acre
proposal would allow
for up to 8 years of
additional disposal
capacity in the event
that it is needed
while the sitewide
analysis is being
completed. If no
expansion takes place
prior to the SWEIS,
it is possible that
existing waste
disposal areas may be
filled prior to
completing sitewide
decisions. Initial
Recommendation:
Include in the SWEIS.
If a compelling need
can be shown for
additional disposal
capacity prior to
completing sitewide
decisions, DOE may,
at a later time,
propose a separate
NEPA review to
address those needs.
Hazardous Waste EM 04/26/91............ Discussion: The
Treatment Facility and Hazardous Waste
Mixed Waste Receiving Treatment Facility is
and Storage Facility, needed for on-site
TA-63. Proposal to waste management and
construct and operate to help DOE meet
two waste management compliance milestones
facilities to regarding legacy
repackage, stage and waste. Delays in
treat hazardous and completing design and
mixed wastes which initiating
cannot be placed in construction could
land disposal areas. jeopardize meeting
The two facilities the Agreement. If
would be connected this project is
actions because they deferred until the
would be located close SWEIS, the compliance
together and they milestone could not
support each other; be met. The Mixed
therefore the NEPA Waste Receiving and
review has been Storage Facility,
combined. DOE has an while not tied to a
initial milestone of specific compliance
01/30/95 for milestone, would
completing the assist DOE in meeting
detailed design for near-term site waste
the proposed Hazardous management goals.
Waste Treatment Although the NEPA
Facility to comply determination was to
with its Federal analyze these two
Facility Compliance facilities together,
Agreement with the the cumulative
EPA; the NEPA review impacts of waste
must be completed disposal operations
prior to beginning the would be analyzed in
detailed design. The the SWEIS. Initial
proposal includes Recommendation:
using small-scale, Proceed with EA.
self-contained
portable ``skids'' to
treat the waste.
High Explosives EM 06/29/92............ Discussion: DOE needs
Wastewater Treatment to address water
Facility, TA-16. pollution compliance
Proposal to construct independent of SWEIS
and operate a analysis. If
wastewater treatment construction is not
facility to treat started by 10/97, DOE
wastewater containing would not meet its
trace amounts of high compliance milestone
explosives waste. The and LANL would not
project would include meet the
constructing a Administrative Order.
delivery pipeline and To start construction
decontamination and by that date, design
demolition of an work must be
existing treatment completed; detailed
facility. The project design could not
would minimize start until the NEPA
wastewater generation review is completed.
by eliminating 99 If the design work
percent of current was deferred until
wastewater flows after sitewide
through a combination decisions, the
of wastewater schedule could not be
elimination, recycle, met. The SWEIS is
and reuse. It would expected to result in
reduce the number of a sitewide waste
industrial wastewater management strategy;
outfalls from the 17 this facility could
currently in use to 1. be important to that
On 6/15/94 the EPA strategy. Work to
issued an minimize in-plant
Administrative Order waste and eliminate
to LANL requiring some wastewater
compliance with Clean outfalls would not
Water Act permitting influence, nor be
requirements. DOE has influenced by,
a milestone of 10/97 sitewide decisions.
to start construction Initial
under its Federal Recommendation: DOE
Facility Compliance makes no
Agreement with the EPA. recommendation at
this time regarding
proceeding with this
NEPA review.
Mixed Waste Disposal EM 07/13/93............ Discussion: The EPA
Facility, TA-67. issued a Hazardous
Proposed facility to and Solid Waste Act
treat and dispose of Permit to LANL that
mixed (radioactive and requires LANL provide
hazardous) waste a list of solid waste
generated at LANL. The management units. The
entire project would workplans for cleanup
consist of up to 11 of the units, to be
waste disposal cells submitted prior to
and would hold up to the investigation
475,000 cubic yards of phase, will contain
waste generated by schedules for
environmental completing the site
restoration work at investigation work.
LANL. These schedules, once
accepted by the EPA,
will be legally
enforceable
milestones under the
conditions described
in the Permit. In
addition, it is
expected that
voluntary corrective
actions will be
undertaken to
remediate a majority
of the sites during
the site
investigation phase.
The facility would
provide the capacity
to safely treat and
dispose of the waste
expected to be
generated by this
program. The NEPA
review must be
completed before
detailed designs are
started. If the
detailed design phase
is delayed until the
SWEIS is completed,
the DOE and LANL will
not be able to meet
the cleanup
schedules. In 1993,
DOE conducted nine
public meetings on
the scope of the NEPA
review of the entire
project to allow the
project milestones to
be met while the
SWEIS is under
preparation. Under
the Environmental
Assessment currently
being prepared, the
facility would be
constructed for the
disposal of
environmental
restoration waste
only. Discussions
concerning the
potential disposal of
legacy and
operational mixed
waste will be part of
the SWEIS
environmental
restoration and waste
management strategy.
The total projected
volume of legacy and
operational mixed
waste would be less
than one percent of
the projected total
annual waste volumes.
Initial
Recommendation: DOE
makes no
recommendation at
this time regarding
proceeding with this
NEPA review. However,
DOE proposes to
proceed with the EA
review for the
environmental
restoration waste
only and make the
draft EA available to
stakeholders to
assist in the
decision making
process. Include in
the SWEIS the
analysis of the
disposal of legacy
and operational mixed
wastes.
National Biomedical none 12/17/93.......... Discussion: DOE has
Tracer Facility. not yet determined a
Proposal to locate, sponsor or funding
construct, and operate profiles for this
a facility at LANL to project. Initial
use accelerator Recommendation: Defer
technology to produce until after SWEIS.
radioisotopes for
medical research and
applications. The
facility would house a
proton accelerator,
laboratories, and
office space.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in Table:
DOE: Department of Energy; DP: DOE Defense Programs; EA: Environmental
Assessment; EM: DOE Environmental Management; EPA: Environmental
Protection Agency; LANL: Los Alamos National Laboratory; SWEIS:
Sitewide Environmental Impact Statement; TA: Technical Area.
Table 2.--Planned NEPA Reviews Recommended to Proceed Prior to
Completion of SWEIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE program
Title, summary sponsor Discussion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laundry. DOE is considering DP Currently, laundry is done
proposing to locate, in an off-site facility.
construct, and operate an It is possible that an on-
on-site facility to launder site facility would be
anti-contamination clothing more efficient. This is a
which may potentially be small-scale project that
contaminated with would not influence, nor
radioactive materials from be influenced by, sitewide
ongoing activities. decisions. If decisions on
the laundry are deferred
until after the SWEIS, DOE
would continue to use an
off-site contract laundry.
Receipt and Storage of DP The DOE sites listed no
Nuclear Material for longer have any
Criticality Experiment, TA- programmatic need for this
18. DOE is considering material. Hanford can no
proposing to ship nuclear longer provide long-term
material from various DOE storage due to clean-up
sites to the Los Alamos operations now going on;
Critical Experiments if not moved off-site, it
Facility (LACEF), and store will be disposed of by
the material at that burial at Hanford. The
facility, until it is Sandia material is unique
needed for criticality and was developed at
experiments or training significant taxpayer
exercises. The experiments expense; the Department of
or training exercises would Defense might fund
be covered by separate NEPA shipment to LANL if it can
review. DOE currently has be accomplished in the
about 3,000 unirradiated near-term. The Oak Ridge
low-enriched uranium material has been used as
nuclear reactor fuel rods an important calibrated
at its Hanford Plant, radiation source for
Richland, Washington; about accident simulation and
30 kilograms of radiation dosimetry; this
unirradiated high-enriched device is the only one in
uranium particle bed fuel this country which has
at its Sandia National been characterized to make
Laboratory, Albuquerque, the dosimetric
New Mexico; and about 250 measurements essential for
kilograms of high-enriched analyzing accident
uranium reactor fuel from conditions and other
the critical mass assembly radiation experiments.
at its Health Physics LANL has an ongoing
Research Reactor, Oak Ridge criticality experiments
National Laboratory, Oak and safety training
Ridge, Tennessee. The LACEF program and can make use
is the only remaining DOE of this material in the
facility where criticality future. If decisions on
experiments are routinely receiving and storing the
conducted. In response to material are deferred
the 1993 Defense Nuclear until the SWEIS, it is
Facilities Safety Board possible that storage,
recommendation regarding shipping or funding
critical facilities constraints would make the
infrastructure, DOE is material unavailable to
considering consolidating LANL. Decisions regarding
unique critical mass the long-term use of the
assemblies at the LACEF in LACEF would be made in the
order to continue to SWEIS as part of the
reliably analyze the sitewide nuclear materials
criticality of nuclear storage and handling
systems. strategy
Hazardous, Low Level EM The current Hazardous Waste
Radioactive, and Mixed Treatment Facility and
Waste Treatment Skids. DOE Mixed Waste Receiving and
uses portable, self- Storage Facility proposal
contained treatment units, includes the use of
or ``skids,'' to treat certain ``skids''
hazardous, low-level specifically for treating
radioactive, and mixed waste at these facilities.
(radioactive and hazardous) DOE may need to use
waste. In addition to the additional ``skids'' to
``skids'' specifically treat on-site waste at
proposed as part of the various locations at LANL
Hazardous Waste Treatment in order to meet the
Facility, DOE may require schedule for DOE's Federal
additional ``skids'' to Facility Compliance
treat waste at various Agreement with the
locations at LANL. Environmental Protection
Agency. The additional
``skids'' would be
designed, constructed, and
possibly operated prior to
completion of the proposed
Hazardous Waste Treatment
Facility and prior to
completion of the SWEIS to
meet the Agreement
schedule. If the project
is deferred until the
SWEIS, the ``skids'' could
not be designed,
constructed or used in the
near-term.
Replacement Waste Compactor EM Discussion: This is a small-
TA-54. DOE is considering scale project which would
proposing to replace an increase operational
existing 50-ton waste efficiency and reduce
compactor at the low-level waste volume. This, in
radioactive waste turn, would extend the
management area at Area G, useful life of the
TA-54, with a 200-ton existing disposal area. If
compactor in a new building installing the proposed
adjacent to the existing compactor is deferred
facility. Initially, DOE until the SWEIS, the
considered including the existing compactor would
analysis of this proposal not be replaced and
with the NEPA review for inefficient waste disposal
the proposal to expand Area practices would continue
G, TA-54; however, the NEPA in the existing area. A
determination for that decision to install and
proposal did not include operate the compactor
the compactor. The existing would not influence, nor
compactor is not operating. be influenced by, sitewide
The proposed replacement decisions.
compactor would increase
the operating life of the
existing waste disposal
area by increasing the
efficiency of waste
minimization practices,
including reducing the
volume of waste for
disposal and eliminating
void spaces between waste
containers. This, in turn,
would postpone the need to
expand the existing waste
site.
Radioisotope Heat Source NE The 1991 EA analyzed using
Fabrication, CMR, TA-3 and LANL facilities at TA-55
TA-55 (Revision to 1991 to support radioisotope
EA). Plutonium-238 is used thermoelectric generator
as a long-term, reliable (RTG) work for the space
source of heat that is mission. The proposal may
converted to electricity to be revised to allow for
power spacecraft. In 1991 RTG work for other
DOE completed an EA for the missions, beyond the
Cassini mission and the timeframe included in the
Comet Rendezvous Asteroid 1991 EA, and possibly
Flyby (CRAF); CRAF was using facilities at the
later canceled. The work at Chemistry and Metallurgy
LANL to support the Cassini Research Building in
mission is ongoing. The addition to TA-55. If so,
project to build more units the 1991 EA would be
for other uses may be revised to provide the
extended at LANL. NEPA review for the
revised mission. If the
revised NEPA review were
to proceed, DOE could make
early decisions on whether
to use LANL facilities for
the additional RTG work.
This would be necessary
if, prior to completing
sitewide decisions, DOE
needed to determine where
the additional RTG work
would be done in the near-
term in order to meet
mission schedules. If the
project is deferred until
the SWEIS, it is possible
that DOE may not be able
to deliver heat sources to
meet mission needs. Any
future long-term uses of
LANL facilities for such
missions, and long-term
strategy for storing and
handling plutonium-238,
will be included in the
SWEIS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in Table:
DOE: Department of Energy; DP: DOE Defense Programs; EA: Environmental
Assessment; EM: DOE Environmental Management; EPA: Environmental
Protection Agency; LANL: Los Alamos National Laboratory; SWEIS:
Sitewide Environmental Impact Statement; TA: Technical Area.
[FR Doc. 94-19532 Filed 8-9-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P