[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25697-25704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11806]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement Los Alamos National 
Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a Site-Wide Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to 
prepare a Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement (SWEIS) for its Los 
Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico, a DOE 
multiprogram research and development laboratory. The SWEIS will be 
prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 
1969, 42 USC 4321 et seq., the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA 
regulations [40 CFR Parts 1500-1508] and the DOE NEPA regulations [10 
CFR Part 1021]. It will analyze as alternatives various levels of LANL 
operations, including reasonable foreseeable new operations and 
facilities.
    DOE initiated a prescoping process with an Advance Notice of Intent 
published in the Federal Register on August 10, 1994 [59 FR 40889]. 
This Notice of Intent reflects the consideration of comments provided 
during the prescoping process, including comments regarding NEPA 
reviews initiated or anticipated at the time of the Advance Notice of 
Intent, and issues and alternatives for the SWEIS.

DATES: The DOE invites other Federal agencies, the State, Indian 
Tribes, local governments, and the general public to comment on the 
scope of this SWEIS. The public scoping period starts with the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register and will continue 
until June 30, 1995. DOE will consider all comments received or 
postmarked by that date in defining the scope of this SWEIS. Comments 
received or postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent 
practicable. Public scoping meetings are scheduled to be held as 
follows:

June 13, 1995; Hilltop House Hotel, 400 Trinity Drive, Los Alamos, 
New Mexico 87544
June 14, 1995; Sweeney Center, 201 West Marcy Street, Santa Fe, New 
Mexico 87501
June 15, 1995; Northern New Mexico Community College, 1002 North 
Onate Street, Espanola, New Mexico 87532

    The purpose of these meetings is to receive oral and written 
comments from the public. The meetings will use a workshop format to 
facilitate dialogue among DOE, LANL, and the public and will provide an 
opportunity for individuals to provide written or oral statements. The 
DOE will publish additional notices on the dates, times, and locations 
of the scoping meetings in local newspapers in advance of the scheduled 
meetings. Any necessary changes will be announced in the local media.
    In addition to providing oral comments at the public scoping 
meetings, all interested parties are invited to record their comments, 
ask questions concerning the LANL SWEIS, request speaking times, 
request to be placed on the LANL SWEIS mailing or document distribution 
list, or request copies of the LANL SWEIS Implementation Plan (when 
available) by leaving a message on the LANL SWEIS Hotline at 1-800-898-
6623. The Hotline will have instructions on how to record your comments 
and requests.

ADDRESSES: Written comments or suggestions to assist the DOE in 
identifying the appropriate scope of the LANL SWEIS should be directed 
to: Mr. Corey A. Cruz, U.S. Department of Energy, Albuquerque 
Operations Office, P.O. Box 5400, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87185-5400, 
or by facsimile at (505) 845-6392. For express delivery services, the 
appropriate address is Pennsylvania and H Streets, Kirtland Air Force 
Base, Albuquerque, NM 87116.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the SWEIS 
and the public scoping process, contact Corey Cruz at the address and 
telephone number listed above.
    For information on DOE's NEPA process, please contact: Carol 
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585. Ms. Borgstrom can be reached at (202) 586-4600, by facsimile at 
(202) 586-7031, or by leaving a message at 1-800-472-2756. 
[[Page 25698]] 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation to Comment

    The public is invited to participate in the scoping process and is 
encouraged to comment on the preliminary alternatives and issues 
identified for the LANL SWEIS. The results of the scoping process will 
be documented in an Implementation Plan which will be made available to 
the public and will reflect how comments provided during the scoping 
process were incorporated or addressed.

Availability of Scoping Documents

    Copies of all written comments, transcripts of all oral comments, 
and copies of the SWEIS Implementation Plan will be available at the 
following locations:

Los Alamos National Laboratory, Community Reading Room, Museum Park 
Office Complex, 1450 Central Avenue, Suite 101, Los Alamos, New Mexico 
87544, 505-665-2127 or 1-800-543-2342
U.S. Department of Energy, National Atomic Museum Public Reading Room, 
Kirtland Air Force Base, Building 20358, Wyoming Boulevard, 
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185, 505-845-6870/4378.

    A full set of comments on the Advance Notice of Intent is available 
at the Los Alamos Community Reading Room.

LANL's Mission

    Among other missions, DOE is responsible for the Federal 
government's nuclear weapons program, research and development of 
energy technologies, and basic science research. LANL is one of DOE's 
primary research and development laboratories. It was established in 
1943 to provide research, design, and testing for nuclear weapons and 
nuclear materials, and remains one of the three laboratories in DOE's 
nuclear weapons complex. Over the past 50 years, LANL's mission has 
expanded to include research in energy, materials science, nuclear 
safeguards and security, biomedical science, computational science, 
environmental protection and cleanup, and other basic and applied 
science research. LANL provides these research and science services for 
DOE and other Federal agencies, universities, foreign countries, and 
private industry. LANL is one of the largest multidisciplinary research 
laboratories in the world, with an annual budget of approximately $1 
billion and more than 10,000 contractor and subcontractor employees. 
LANL covers about 43 square miles of land held as a Federal reservation 
in north-central New Mexico in Los Alamos, Sandoval and Santa Fe 
Counties.
    A report entitled ``Alternative Futures for the DOE National 
Laboratories'' (the ``Galvin Report''), prepared for the Secretary of 
Energy by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, was completed in 
February 1995. This independent review provided recommendations on the 
future missions of all DOE National Laboratories. Although the DOE has 
not yet fully determined which of these recommendations will be 
adopted, the preliminary SWEIS alternatives are structured to allow for 
inclusion of the report's recommendations specific to LANL operations.

The Role of the SWEIS in the DOE NEPA Compliance Strategy

    The DOE has a policy [10 CFR 1021.330] of preparing SWEISs for 
certain large, multiple-facility sites, such as LANL. The purpose of a 
SWEIS is to provide DOE and its stakeholders with an analysis of the 
environmental impacts caused by ongoing and reasonably foreseeable new 
operations and facilities and reasonable alternatives at a DOE site, to 
provide a basis for site-wide decision making, and to improve and 
coordinate agency plans, functions, programs, and resource utilization. 
Additionally, a SWEIS is to provide an overall NEPA baseline for a site 
that is useful for tiering or as a reference when project-specific NEPA 
documents are prepared. The NEPA process allows for Federal, state, 
tribal, county, municipal, and public participation in the 
environmental review process. A SWEIS was last prepared for LANL in 
1979 [DOE/EIS-0018]. The proposed SWEIS would replace that document as 
the baseline environmental impact statement regarding LANL operations.
    A SWEIS is a useful aid for DOE management of its facilities and 
operations. It provides the DOE decision makers and the public with 
analyses of the cumulative environmental impacts of past, ongoing and 
reasonably foreseeable activities at a site and contrasts these with 
reasonable alternatives in order to inform decisions regarding the 
resources entrusted to DOE's care. A SWEIS can be used as a way to 
efficiently deal with multiple proposals and can help establish an 
efficient, environmentally sound and cost effective plan for operating 
the site and its facilities. In accordance with 10 CFR 1021.330(d), DOE 
will evaluate the SWEIS at least every five years after its completion 
to determine whether it remains adequate or should be supplemented or 
replaced with a new SWEIS.

The LANL Site-Wide Analysis

    The SWEIS will address operations and activities that DOE foresees 
at LANL within approximately the next 10 years. The SWEIS will focus on 
operating practices and facility management, specifically with the 
intent to analyze the overall impacts of current and reasonably 
foreseeable operations at LANL. The DOE proposes for the SWEIS to 
include an analysis of land use requirements related to the operations 
at LANL, as well as DOE activities as the primary Natural Resources 
Trustee for LANL. The DOE proposes to use the SWEIS to analyze: 
mitigation measures for impacts of LANL operations; interim nuclear 
materials storage and management strategies for LANL; LANL 
environmental restoration strategies; and waste management strategies 
for LANL. Specific projects or facilities that are speculative and 
therefore not ready for analysis would not be addressed in the SWEIS. 
However, if such projects later become definite proposals for action 
they would be subject to subsequent project- or facility-specific NEPA 
reviews that would be tiered from the SWEIS.
    The SWEIS is expected to facilitate and streamline subsequent NEPA 
reviews at LANL by allowing DOE to focus on project-specific issues and 
to narrow and simplify the scope of later reviews. This process is 
called ``tiering'' [40 CFR 1508.28]. DOE believes that the SWEIS 
analysis will provide adequate NEPA review for those activities and 
projects designated and analyzed within the SWEIS.

Preliminary Alternatives

    The scoping process is an opportunity for the public to assist the 
DOE in determining the alternatives and issues for analysis. A 
preliminary set of alternatives and issues for evaluation in the SWEIS 
is identified below, after consideration of comments received during 
the prescoping process. In response to prescoping comments, a 
discussion of the relationship between programs and specific LANL 
operations has been included in each preliminary alternative 
description. Future programs and activities will be determined based on 
such factors as national needs, scientific developments, budgets, 
environmental impacts, the results of NEPA reviews such as the 
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement (PEIS) discussed below, and other considerations. Thus, the 
program discussions provided below are not all-inclusive and are only 
examples for the [[Page 25699]] facility operational levels described 
in the alternatives. For each of the alternatives discussed, waste 
management/environmental restoration activities, interim activities for 
nuclear materials storage and handling, and land requirements will be 
analyzed. The environmental impacts of both facilities and operations 
and cumulative site-wide operations will be assessed. DOE will continue 
to conduct ongoing activities as the SWEIS is being prepared.

No Action

    The No Action alternative would continue current facility 
operations throughout LANL in support of assigned missions. NEPA 
regulations require analysis of the No Action alternative to provide a 
benchmark for comparison with environmental effects of the other 
alternatives. This alternative would include ongoing and proposed 
activities for which the NEPA reviews will have been completed prior to 
completion of the SWEIS. The current Waste Management/Environmental 
Restoration program plans (i.e., actions for which NEPA review will 
have been completed) will be reflected in this alternative, including 
specific strategies to address anticipated waste generated by facility 
and restoration operations.
    This alternative reflects the current nuclear weapons program 
missions at LANL. This includes support of competence in nuclear 
weapons component fabrication technologies; nuclear weapons material 
processing to support technology competence, process development and 
improvement, and safe, secure storage of the nuclear material 
inventory; acceptance and processing of neutron sources from off-site 
(from licensees such as universities and corporations that no longer 
need them); maintenance of the hydrodynamic test program at projected 
material throughputs; destructive evaluation of plutonium components; 
continued weapons and other research and development operations using 
accelerators; continued operations at the Los Alamos Critical 
Experiments Facility in support of existing missions; and 
transportation and storage of nuclear material at currently projected 
levels.

Reduced Operation

    This alternative would reflect a reduction in facility operations 
from those currently ongoing and planned. For example, nuclear 
materials processing activities would be reduced and consolidated. 
Reduced shipments and receipts of nuclear materials would also be 
reflected under this alternative, as would a reduced nuclear material 
inventory over the time period under analysis (as compared to inventory 
projections under the other alternatives). This alternative may include 
some construction projects to consolidate operations within existing 
facilities, maintain existing facilities, and replace existing 
facilities, if necessary. Specific waste management strategies would be 
developed to address the types and quantities of waste anticipated 
under this scenario. These strategies would consider off-site and on-
site treatment and disposition options.
    The programmatic context for this alternative is the maintenance of 
existing missions at a reduced scope. This alternative would be 
represented by one or more of the following: Maintenance of capability 
for fewer weapon production technologies; reduced nuclear materials 
processing (only to support safe, secure storage of the LANL 
inventory); support of only existing commitments regarding the 
processing of neutron sources from off-site; reduction in the materials 
throughput for hydrodynamic and other above ground weapon-related 
experiments; destructive evaluation of fewer plutonium components each 
year; reduction in weapons and other research and development use of 
accelerators; a reduced inventory and number of criticality experiments 
and training courses at the Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility; 
and reduced transportation and storage of nuclear materials.

Expanded Operation

    This alternative would reflect an increase in facility operations 
to the highest levels that can be supported by current facilities, and 
would evaluate those new facilities that are reasonably foreseeable. 
This could require construction projects to address safety, security 
and environmental compliance as well as to support reconfiguration of 
facility equipment and operations to optimize use of current 
facilities' capabilities. This could also require construction projects 
for reasonably foreseeable new facilities. Specific waste management 
strategies would be developed to address the increased types and 
quantities of waste anticipated under this scenario, considering off-
site and on-site treatment and disposition options. These waste 
management strategies would include alternative approaches to 
accommodate the receipt of off-site waste for treatment and disposal, 
consistent with the Waste Management PEIS discussed below.
    The programmatic context for this alternative is the continued 
support of existing missions, and additional missions which may be 
supported with the capabilities and capacities inherent in the existing 
facilities or which may require new facilities. Such program activities 
could include: low-level production of weapon components; increased 
throughput for nuclear materials processing; increased support of 
processing for off-site neutron sources; increased materials throughput 
for hydrodynamic and other test activities; destructive analysis of 
additional plutonium components each year; increased use of 
accelerators in support of weapons and other research and development 
missions; additional numbers and types of experiments at the Los Alamos 
Critical Experiments Facility; and increased transportation and storage 
of nuclear materials.

Other Alternatives Considered

    DOE had asked in the Advance Notice of Intent whether analysis of 
an alternative that would describe phasing out all LANL operations and 
eventually decommissioning all facilities would be useful for 
comparison to ongoing activities. In response, the DOE received seven 
comments from the public. Four of the comments supported analysis of 
decontamination and decommissioning for the entire site; two 
recommended analysis of decontamination and decommissioning for 
``nuclear'' related activities and one comment indicated the 
decontamination and decommissioning alternative was not reasonable and 
should not be analyzed. Of those supporting inclusion of a 
decontamination and decommissioning alternative, three appeared to 
support it as a determinant of useful comparative information and three 
advocated actual shutdown and decommissioning of some or all of LANL. 
The seven responses were obtained both orally and in writing from a 
population of over 500 comments from over 250 commentors.
    DOE carefully considered these comments. DOE also recognizes that 
LANL has unique capabilities, diverse roles supporting a variety of 
national programs, and that there is an essential near-term need to 
manage and maintain the safety and stability of the existing nuclear 
materials inventory. Accordingly, in view of the limited community 
interest and DOE's view at this time that a decision to shut down LANL 
operations within the 5-10 year timeframe of the SWEIS would be highly 
unlikely, DOE plans not to expend the time and money that would be 
needed to analyze an alternative involving an orderly shutdown during 
[[Page 25700]] this period. The public is welcome to comment further on 
this issue during the scoping period.

Preliminary List of Issues To Be Addressed

    The SWEIS will describe the potential environmental impacts of the 
alternatives, using available data where possible and obtaining 
additional data where necessary. In accordance with the Council on 
Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500.4 and 1502.21), other 
documents, as appropriate, may be incorporated into the impacts 
analyses by reference, in whole or in part. The following preliminary 
list of issues was identified following the prescoping process. The DOE 
specifically invites suggestions for the addition or deletion of items 
on this list.
    1. Water resources, particularly tritium in the groundwater and 
radioactive particles in streams and the Cochiti Reservoir.
    2. Cultural resources, particularly regarding Native American 
access to land, flora of religious or medicinal significance, and 
protection of archeological and religious sites.
    3. Air quality, particularly regarding compliance with Federal and 
state laws, and releases of radioactive and hazardous materials due to 
LANL operations.
    4. Land use, particularly regarding use of DOE land by the public, 
radioactive contamination of the land, and burial of radioactive and 
hazardous materials.
    5. Biota, particularly the effects of radioactive and hazardous 
releases on elk and the food chain, threatened and endangered species, 
and species of special concern.
    6. Transportation, particularly regarding the risks of transporting 
nuclear material on and off the LANL site, and the need for integrating 
emergency plans with state, tribal, and local police and health 
organizations in case of a nuclear material release during transport.
    7. Socioeconomics, particularly regarding the economic impact of 
LANL on the surrounding community.
    8. Health effects, particularly regarding incidence of cancer in 
workers and the communities surrounding LANL, and other health effects 
on the public and workers.
    9. Environmental justice, particularly whether or not activities at 
LANL disproportionately and adversely affect minority or low-income 
populations.
    10. Noise/aesthetics, particularly regarding the visual, noise, and 
other aesthetic impacts of LANL facilities and operations on the 
surrounding communities and potential uses of adjacent land.
    Additional issues raised by the public during the prescoping 
process include:
     National security policy (particularly the need for a 
nuclear stockpile, the need for stockpile stewardship, and the effect 
of LANL operations on international non-proliferation);
     The goals of, and funding for, environmental restoration;
     The transfer of land to Pueblos or to Los Alamos County;
     Laboratory management (particularly the responsiveness of 
LANL management to community concerns, the equity in LANL/DOE outreach 
programs, the equity of salary and hiring policies, encouragement of 
independent ideas, the management of LANL by the University of 
California, and the non-profit status of LANL); and
     The credibility of the DOE and LANL (reliability of 
information provided by DOE and LANL, concerns regarding the actual 
effect of public input on DOE decisions, and a lack of trust in the DOE 
to prepare the SWEIS in accordance with the laws and regulations).
    While DOE considers these issues to be outside the scope of the 
SWEIS, DOE will attempt to address these concerns in the process of 
interacting with the public on the SWEIS and on other issues, by 
answering questions posed during the SWEIS process, directing 
stakeholders to other reviews where appropriate, providing requested 
information (to the extent allowed by laws and regulations), and 
explaining how public comment and input is considered in each step of 
the LANL SWEIS process.

Related NEPA Reviews

    Currently, the DOE is analyzing several proposals for programmatic, 
site-specific, and project-specific action that affect LANL either 
directly or indirectly. These analyses are being performed as NEPA 
reviews in several programmatic, site-wide, and project-specific EISs 
and environmental assessments. The summaries below are intended to 
familiarize the reader with the purpose of these other NEPA reviews and 
how LANL is being considered in them.

Programmatic NEPA Reviews

    The Waste Management PEIS [Notice of Intent, 55 FR 42633, October 
22, 1990; also see 60 FR 4607, January 24, 1995] (formerly called the 
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management PEIS) will analyze the 
DOE plan to formulate and implement a national integrated Waste 
Management program. LANL is one of the alternative sites proposed to 
store and process transuranic radioactive waste and to store, process, 
and provide on-site disposal for low-level radioactive waste, which may 
include material generated at locations other than LANL. The waste 
management analyses in the SWEIS will address the facilities and 
operations necessary to implement a waste management strategy at LANL, 
consistent with the Waste Management PEIS.
    The Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration PEIS [revised Notice of 
Intent, 59 FR 54175, October 28, 1994] was separated into the Tritium 
Supply and Recycling PEIS and the Stockpile Stewardship and Management 
PEIS. LANL is not an alternative site for the Tritium Supply and 
Recycling PEIS. However, the Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS 
will analyze changes in LANL's role in weapons research and development 
and may analyze aspects of a LANL weapon component production mission. 
Since public scoping for the Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS 
has not yet been initiated, LANL's role in the alternatives for this 
PEIS cannot now be predicted. The SWEIS is intended to provide the 
site-specific analysis for various levels of facility operations that 
could support a variety of program missions. The SWEIS will address 
LANL facility operations that are expected to be of primary interest to 
the public and DOE in support of potential future programs. In this 
manner, DOE intends to integrate programmatic analyses for the 
Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS with site-specific analyses 
of the SWEIS.
    The Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National 
Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 
Programs PEIS includes a programmatic analysis of transporting, 
processing, and storing spent nuclear reactor fuel [Notice of 
Availability, Final EIS, 60 FR 20992, April 28, 1995]. LANL has 
generated spent fuel and continues to store this material pending the 
outcome of programmatic decisions following the spent fuel PEIS. The 
nuclear material storage and handling analyses in the SWEIS will 
address the continued storage and potential disposition of this fuel, 
consistent with this PEIS.
    The DOE is preparing a Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable 
Fissile Materials PEIS [Notice of Intent, 59 FR 31985, June 21, 1994]. 
This PEIS will analyze alternatives for the long-term storage and 
disposition of surplus nuclear materials, with the exception of surplus 
highly enriched uranium, in [[Page 25701]] order to minimize the risk 
of proliferation of nuclear weapons capability in the world. Phase I of 
the project would be to provide safe, controlled, inspectable interim 
storage of nuclear materials. Phase II would be long-term storage or 
disposition of surplus material. Among other things, this PEIS will 
analyze a new, consolidated long-term storage facility at five 
candidate sites (LANL is not a candidate site), as well as continued 
use of existing facilities for interim storage. On April 5, 1995, DOE 
published a Notice [65 FR 17344] amending the scope of this PEIS by 
removing the disposition of all surplus highly enriched uranium. 
Instead, DOE will prepare a separate EIS entitled Disposition of 
Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium. The scope of this EIS has not yet 
finally been determined, because the public scoping period only closed 
on May 1, 1995. LANL now stores some nuclear materials; since the SWEIS 
addresses approximately a 10-year period, it will analyze storage and 
handling of current and projected inventories prior to implementation 
of the decisions from Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials PEIS.
    The DOE is preparing the Medical Isotope Production at Sandia 
National Laboratory/New Mexico and Los Alamos National Laboratory 
Environmental Assessment for the proposal to produce medical isotopes 
for medical applications such as diagnostics and chemotherapy [EA 
determination, November 15, 1994]. The proposal involves irradiating 
targets in a nuclear reactor at Sandia National Laboratory, 
Albuquerque, processing the material, and disposing of waste. 
Alternatives involving LANL facilities would only include fabricating 
targets at the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building and disposing 
of waste from target fabrication at LANL waste management areas. Target 
fabrication and associated activities are ongoing at LANL and as such, 
would be analyzed in the SWEIS to provide environmental impacts at a 
variety of operational levels.

Ongoing LANL NEPA Reviews

    The DOE is preparing an EIS for the construction and operation of 
an enhanced radiographic hydrodynamic test facility at LANL. This EIS 
examines the alternatives to support some of the stockpile stewardship 
missions currently assigned to LANL in the absence of nuclear testing. 
The preferred alternative is to complete and operate the partially 
constructed Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility. DOE 
expects that all or portions of this EIS will be incorporated by 
reference into the LANL SWEIS and that the decisions from this EIS will 
be reflected in the LANL No Action alternative. The Record of Decision 
for this EIS is scheduled for September 1995.
    DOE had initiated or considered several other environmental 
analyses for specific proposed projects at LANL. Those presented in the 
LANL SWEIS Advance Notice of Intent are identified in Table I, with a 
summary of comments received on each project through the prescoping 
process and the DOE decision as to which project NEPA reviews will 
proceed immediately, which will be suspended for inclusion in the 
SWEIS, and those which will be deferred until after the SWEIS.
    The results of the LANL project-level NEPA reviews that will 
precede completion of the SWEIS will be addressed in the No Action 
alternative. Projects for which NEPA reviews were suspended for 
inclusion in the SWEIS will be addressed in one or more alternatives 
and their impacts will be included in the cumulative impact analysis. 
It is also likely that additional projects will be proposed as the 
SWEIS process continues; each proposal will be reviewed to determine 
whether its NEPA process should proceed separately, should be included 
in the SWEIS, or should be deferred until after the SWEIS. The exact 
relationship between specific proposed projects and the SWEIS 
alternatives will be detailed in the Draft SWEIS.

The SWEIS Preparation Process

    After the scoping period, DOE will prepare and publish the LANL 
SWEIS Implementation Plan, which will be placed in the Los Alamos 
National Laboratory Community Reading Room and the Atomic Museum Public 
Reading Room, and made available to members of the public upon request. 
This document will describe the DOE's plan for preparing the SWEIS, 
based upon the results of the scoping process. The Implementation Plan 
will include the revised alternatives and environmental issues which 
were refined through the scoping process, and will describe how 
comments received in the scoping process were considered in its 
development.
    The DOE intends to complete the Draft EIS in early 1996 and will 
announce its availability in the Federal Register and through local 
media. The DOE will hold public hearings to solicit comments on the 
Draft EIS from the public, organizations, and other agencies, and will 
consider all comments in the preparation of the Final EIS. The DOE 
intends to complete the Final EIS in December 1996.
    DOE expects to issue the Record of Decision in early 1997, but at 
least 30 days after a Notice of Availability of the Final EIS is 
published in the Federal Register.

Classified Material

    DOE will review classified material while preparing this SWEIS. 
Within the limits of classification, DOE will provide to the public as 
much information as possible. Any classified material DOE needs to use 
to explain the purpose and need for action, or the uses, materials, or 
impacts analyzed in this SWEIS, will be segregated into a classified 
appendix or supplement.

    Signed in Washington, D.C., this 5th day of May 1995, for the 
United States Department of Energy.
Peter Brush,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.

                                                                        
[[Page 25702]]
                                                     Table 1                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Proceed with     
      Project              ANOI recommendation                 Comments received             independent NEPA   
                                                                                                  review?       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radioactive Liquid  Suspend the NEPA review for this   6 comments received. 4 concurred   No--as long as the    
 Waste Treatment     project and address it in the      with the recommendation; 1         existing system can  
 Facility.           SWEIS.                             asserted that the existing         operate safely, DOE  
                                                        treatment facility is thought to   intends to analyze   
                                                        be leaking; 1 questioned why       this proposed        
                                                        this project has to be in the      replacement in the   
                                                        SWEIS.                             SWEIS.               
Chemistry and       Proceed immediately with the NEPA  16 comments received. 5 concurred  Yes--proceed with a   
 Metallurgy          review for project actions for     with the recommendation; 5         review of the subset 
 Research Building   maintenance of the existing        indicated that additional          of proposed upgrades,
 Upgrades.           infrastructure, for improved       information was required to        as recommended in the
                     safety of operations to workers    develop a position on this         ANOI. Additional     
                     and the public, for enhanced       subject; 3 indicated that DOE      upgrades will be     
                     environmental management           should pursue uses for this        analyzed in the      
                     systems, and for improved          facility and funding which can     SWEIS.               
                     security. Other upgrades should    better benefit society; and 3                           
                     be suspended and addressed in      opposed any upgrades prior to                           
                     the SWEIS.                         the completion of the SWEIS.                            
High Explosives     Proceed with the NEPA review for   2 comments received. 1 concurred   No--the project has   
 Materials Test      this project immediately.          with the recommendation, given     been cancelled.      
 Facility.                                              limited information; 1 opposed                          
                                                        this recommendation, proposing                          
                                                        that it be covered in the SWEIS.                        
Isotope Separator   Defer the NEPA review for this     3 comments received. All 3         No--defer until after 
 Facility.           project until after the SWEIS.     concurred with the                 SWEIS.               
                                                        recommendation.                                         
Low Energy          Proceed with the NEPA review for   3 comments received. All 3         Environmental         
 Accelerator         this project immediately.          opposed the recommendation.        Assessment has been  
 Laboratory.                                                                               completed and a      
                                                                                           Finding of No        
                                                                                           Significant Impact   
                                                                                           has been issued.     
Nuclear Materials   The NEPA review for upgrades that  8 comments received. 3 concurred   No--repair and operate
 Storage Facility    would increase capacity should     with the recommendation; 3         up to 6.6 metric     
 Upgrade.            be suspended and addressed in      indicated that additional          tons; proposed       
                     the SWEIS. Activities to correct   information was necessary          capacity changes will
                     design deficiencies should         regarding nuclear material         be addressed in the  
                     proceed based upon previous NEPA   storage at LANL; 1 opposed         SWEIS.               
                     documentation.                     storage of weapons usable                               
                                                        fissile materials of any kind; 1                        
                                                        opposed even repairs to this                            
                                                        facility pending completion of                          
                                                        the SWEIS.                                              
Safety Testing of   Proceed with the NEPA review for   4 comments received. 2 opposed     No--this subject will 
 Pits under          this project immediately.          the recommendation; 2 indicated    be addressed in the  
 Thermal Stress.                                        that additional information was    SWEIS.               
                                                        necessary regarding the benefits                        
                                                        of this project.                                        
Transuranic Waste   Proceed with the NEPA review for   2 comments received. Both opposed  Yes--in order to      
 Drum Staging        this project immediately.          the recommendation.                support staging of   
 Building.                                                                                 waste drums generated
                                                                                           by ongoing           
                                                                                           activities.          
Weapons Components  Proceed with the NEPA review for   3 comments received. 1 comment     Environmental         
 Test Facility       this project immediately.          indicated concurrence with the     assessment has been  
 Relocation.                                            recommendation; 1 comment          completed and a      
                                                        indicated that additional          Finding of No        
                                                        information on this project was    Significant Impact   
                                                        required; 1 comment indicated      has been issued.     
                                                        that public opinion on this                             
                                                        subject was moot because the                            
                                                        environmental assessment had                            
                                                        since been completed.                                   
Decontaminate,      Suspend the NEPA review for this   3 comments received. All 3         No--this subject will 
 Decommission, and   project and address it in the      concurred with the                 be addressed in the  
 Demolish            SWEIS.                             recommendation.                    SWEIS.               
 Building, TA-33-                                                                                               
 86.                                                                                                            
New Sanitary        Suspend the NEPA review for this   4 comments received. 3 concurred   No--this subject will 
 Landfill.           project and address it in the      with the recommendation; 1         be addressed in the  
                     SWEIS.                             requested that more emphasis be    SWEIS.               
                                                        placed on minimization of                               
                                                        sanitary waste.                                         
Actinide Source     Proceed with the NEPA review for   3 comments received. 2 opposed     Environmental         
 Term Waste Test     this project immediately.          the recommendation; 1 indicated    assessment has been  
 Program.                                               that additional information was    completed and a      
                                                        required to reach an opinion on    Finding of No        
                                                        this subject.                      Significant Impact   
                                                                                           has been issued.     
[[Page 25703]]
                                                                                                                
Controlled Air      Suspend the NEPA review for        17 comments received. 2 concurred  No--this subject,     
 Incinerator         treatment operations and address   with the recommendation; 1         including the trial  
 Operations.         that in the SWEIS; no              indicated that no aspects of       burn, will be        
                     recommendations were made          incinerator operations be          addressed in the     
                     regarding the NEPA review for      included in the SWEIS; 2           SWEIS. This process  
                     the proposed trial burn.           indicated that additional          is being placed on   
                                                        information on this subject was    stand-by pending     
                                                        required; 5 indicated concerns     completion of the    
                                                        with the impacts of                SWEIS.               
                                                        incineration; 2 indicated                               
                                                        opposition to incineration of                           
                                                        waste; 1 indicated that                                 
                                                        alternatives to incineration                            
                                                        should be examined with the same                        
                                                        rigor as applied to                                     
                                                        incineration; 1 indicated LANL                          
                                                        needs to obey all laws enacted                          
                                                        for public protection; 1                                
                                                        indicated the need to study the                         
                                                        environmental impacts of the                            
                                                        incinerator; and 2 indicated                            
                                                        that all incinerator activities                         
                                                        (including the trial burn) be                           
                                                        suspended and included in the                           
                                                        SWEIS.                                                  
Expansion of Area   Suspend the NEPA review for this   19 comments received. 5 concurred  No--this subject will 
 G Low-Level Waste   project and address it in the      with the recommendation; 4         be addressed in the  
 Disposal Area.      SWEIS.                             indicated that additional          SWEIS.               
                                                        information was required on this                        
                                                        subject; 1 indicated that                               
                                                        alternatives to burial should be                        
                                                        pursued; 3 indicated concern                            
                                                        regarding the scope and impact                          
                                                        of Area G expansion; 1 indicated                        
                                                        that environmental restoration                          
                                                        waste should be considered                              
                                                        weapons-related waste; 1                                
                                                        indicated that LANL is not in                           
                                                        full compliance with                                    
                                                        regulations; 4 indicated                                
                                                        opposition to any expansion of                          
                                                        Area G.                                                 
Hazardous Waste     Proceed with the NEPA review for   3 comments received. 2 opposed     Yes--to support near- 
 Treatment           this project immediately.          the recommendation; 1 indicated    term programmatic    
 Facility and                                           no opinion on the recommendation.  requirements.        
 Mixed Waste                                                                                                    
 Receiving and                                                                                                  
 Storage Facility.                                                                                              
High Explosives     No initial recommendation was      5 comments received. 1 comment     Yes--to support near- 
 Wastewater          made regarding the NEPA review     requested that DOE proceed         term objectives      
 Treatment           for this project.                  promptly with NEPA documentation   regarding waste      
 Facility.                                              for this project; 2 indicated      minimization and     
                                                        that additional information was    management.          
                                                        required on this subject; 2                             
                                                        requested that the NEPA                                 
                                                        documentation for this project                          
                                                        be suspended and addressed in                           
                                                        the SWEIS.                                              
Mixed Waste         No initial recommendation was      4 comments received. 1 concurred   Yes--for support of   
 Disposal Facility.  made regarding the NEPA review     with the DOE proposal; 3 opposed   the environmental    
                     for this project. However, the     any action proceeding for this     restoration program  
                     DOE proposed to proceed with an    project prior to completion of     only. The use of this
                     environmental assessment for the   the SWEIS.                         facility for other   
                     environmental restoration waste                                       waste sources will be
                     only.                                                                 examined in the      
                                                                                           SWEIS.               
National            Defer the NEPA review for this     3 comments received. All 3         No--defer until after 
 Biomedical Tracer   project until after the SWEIS is   concurred with the                 the SWEIS.           
 Facility.           completed.                         recommendation.                                         
Laundry...........  Proceed with the NEPA review for   3 comments received. 2 opposed     No--this subject will 
                     this project immediately.          the recommendation; 1 indicated    be addressed in the  
                                                        that this facility might benefit   SWEIS.               
                                                        from analysis in the SWEIS, but                         
                                                        noted insufficient information                          
                                                        to reach a clear decision.                              
Receipt and         Proceed with the NEPA review for   3 comments received. All 3         Yes--to support the   
 Storage of          this project immediately.          opposed the recommendation.        programmatic need for
 Nuclear Material                                                                          this material.       
 for Criticality                                                                                                
 Experiment.                                                                                                    
Hazardous Low-      Proceed with the NEPA review for   3 comments received. All 3         Yes--to support near  
 Level               this project immediately.          indicate support of the            term waste management
 Radioactive, and                                       recommendation.                    program activities.  
 Mixed Waste                                                                                                    
 Treatment Skids.                                                                                               
Replacement Waste   Proceed with the NEPA review for   5 comments received. All 5         This proposed         
 Compactor.          this project immediately.          indicate support of the            replacement has been 
                                                        recommendation.                    categorically        
                                                                                           excluded from further
                                                                                           NEPA review.         
Radioisotope Heat   Proceed with the NEPA review for   3 comments received. All 3         No--this subject will 
 Source              this project immediately.          indicate opposition to the         be addressed in the  
 Fabrication.                                           recommendation.                    SWEIS.               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 25704]] [FR Doc. 95-11806 Filed 5-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P