[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 22, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54777-54779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27013]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Proposed Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the M1 
Breacher Life Cycle Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: U.S. Army Program Executive Office, Ground Combat & Support 
Systems.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) of 1969 and Army Regulation 200-2, the proposed FONSI for the M1 
Breacher is being published for comment. The U.S. Army Program 
Executive Office, Ground Combat & Support Systems (PEO-GCSS) has 
prepared a Life Cycle Environmental Assessment (LCEA) which examines 
the potential impacts to the natural and human environment from the 
proposed development of the Breacher as a combat vehicle that combines 
capabilities to reduce both simple and complex obstacle systems into a 
single armored vehicle chassis. Based on the LCEA, PEO-GCSS and the 
Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) have determined the 
proposed action is not a major Federal action significantly affecting 
the quality of the human environment, within the meaning of NEPA. 
Therefore the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not 
required and the Army is issuing this proposed FONSI.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning the proposed 
action should be directed to Mr. Brian Bonkosky, Program Executive 
Office, Ground Combat & Support Systems, Breacher Product Manager's 
Office, ATTN: SFAE-GCSS-CV-B, Warren, Michigan 48397-5000, telephone 
number: (810) 574-7687, fax number: (810) 574-7822.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Note: PEO, GCSS absorbed the U.S. Army 
Program Executive Office, Armored Systems Modernization (PEO, ASM) in 
September 1996. The LCEA, upon which this FONSI is based, was conducted 
within PEO, ASM. Organizational references within the LCEA to PEO, ASM 
should be considered to be changed to PEO, GCSS.

Proposed Action

    This LCEA examines the potential impacts to the natural and human 
environment from the proposed development of the M1 Breacher as a 
combat vehicle combining capabilities to reduce both simple and complex 
obstacle systems into a single armored vehicle chassis. The Breacher 
would meet the Army's Operational Requirements Document (ORD) specified 
requirements for increased capability in a single armored vehicle based 
on the M1 Abrams chassis. These requirements call for capability to 
remove and destroy obstacles to troop and vehicular movement (such as 
ditches, berms, barbed wire, and other natural or man-made obstacles). 
The Breacher also provides countermine capability, as well as more 
mobility and survivability than is currently available. In accordance 
with the Army's combat maintenance emphasis on designing for discard, 
Breacher combat components, to the maximum extent feasible, would be 
designed for discard at failure in the field. However, in non-combat 
situations, packaging, handling, and storage for transportation of 
Breacher systems would include the consideration of such recycling and 
pollution prevention measures as employing reusable containers and the 
breakdown and recycling of discarded components.

[[Page 54778]]

Environmental Impacts

    The Breacher vehicle life cycle includes design and manufacture, 
transport of vehicles to test sites, testing, production vehicle 
manufacturing, deployment and operations of production vehicles, and 
eventual demilitarization. Potential environmental impacts of these 
life cycle stages may include air, water, hazardous waste, noise, 
biotic, and socioeconomic (social, economic, historical, 
archaeological, and cultural) impacts at each of these life cycle 
phases.
    Constructing and assembling Breacher units involves working with a 
variety of industrial processes and materials, and would involve the 
generation of air emissions, wastewater discharges, and limited 
quantities of solid and hazardous wastes at various facilities, which 
in turn may result in impacts to air, water, biotic, and socioeconomic 
resources at those facilities. Transport of assembled vehicles can 
result in minor environmental impacts along the various transport 
routes.
    Breacher units would receive preliminary testing at the production 
facilities and then be transported to a number of other Army facilities 
for various stages of testing before deployment. Testing of the 
Breacher would involve determining its transportability, performance 
capabilities, and vulnerability/survivability to various combat 
threats. Simulated field training and combat conditions would be 
employed during this testing. Testing phase environmental impacts may 
involve modest amounts of various emissions (particularly air 
emissions) resulting from truck and rail transport between the 
production facilities and the testing facilities. These emissions could 
result in modest impacts to air, water, biotic, and socioeconomic 
resources along the travel routes. Testing of the Breacher units would 
result in air emissions from the Breacher, smoke, dust, and other 
materials from field testing, as well as land disturbance from the 
Breacher tracks and from breaching operations. This land disturbance 
could result in some habitat destruction and nonpoint source runoff at 
the test ranges, particularly at more vulnerable sites.
    Operational impacts are likely to be quite similar to, somewhat 
more extensive, and greatly more dispersed in place and time than the 
impacts described for the manufacture and testing described above. 
Demilitarization impacts would be similar to manufacturing impacts, but 
would likely involve more extensive generation of solid and hazardous 
waste. Recycling of components and alternative end uses could reduce 
this waste generation.
    a. Comparison of Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives 
(Including the Proposed Action). None of the alternatives would result 
in significant impacts to the human environment. There would be some 
modest differences in intensity of impacts between the alternatives in 
the design and manufacturing, deployment and operations, and 
demilitarization phases of the Breacher life cycle due to the larger 
number of vehicles produced in the higher production alternative and 
the use of new materials to produce the vehicle chassis in the 
unrecycled alternative. All of the alternatives would have the same 
level of impacts in the transport to test site, testing, and transport 
to deployment site life cycle stages because the activities in those 
phases would be identical for all alternatives.
    The proposed action would be likely to have the least impacts of 
all of the alternatives considered because the Breacher vehicle would 
eliminate the use of various types of equipment that are less well 
suited to its mission. The Breacher would thus be less likely to suffer 
the type of accidents, breakdowns, and leakage during operations that 
could result in substantial releases of hazardous substances into the 
air and water or onto the ground. Such impacts will continue to occur 
under the no action alternative, and likely increase in the future as 
the current inventory of equipment ages. This factor would likely more 
than offset the modest emissions, discharges, and potential releases 
that result from the production of the Breacher vehicles. The location 
alternative would be likely to have greater impacts than the proposed 
action because the UDLP San Jose, California plant is located in a more 
sensitive environmental setting than the UDLP York, Pennsylvania plant. 
The higher production alternative would have a greater impact than the 
proposed action because the increased production would result in more 
emissions, discharges, and releases. The unrecycled alternative would 
result in greater impacts than the proposed action because the reliance 
on new materials and the absence of recycling of existing M1 Abrams 
vehicles would result in the generation of considerably more solid and 
hazardous waste.
    b. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action. 
Impacts from the proposed action would be minimal and not significant 
for the following reasons (references in the parentheses refer to pages 
in the LCEA):
    (1) Solid and Hazardous Waste Impacts. Solid and hazardous waste 
impacts would not be significant because even though measurable 
environmental impacts would be likely to occur during the design and 
manufacture stage there is no evidence of any environmental violation 
history at either Anniston Army Depot or the UDLP plant at York, 
Pennsylvania. In addition, during the transport to test facility and 
test phases no measurable environmental impacts would be likely under 
normal conditions and while there might be some likelihood of 
measurable environmental impacts from accidents they would still be 
likely to be minor. (See pp. 18-19, 25, 33, 47-48, 50).
    (2) Water Quality Impacts. Water quality impacts would not be 
significant because the amounts of both point source and nonpoint 
pollutants from all of the life cycle stages would likely result in no 
measurable environmental impacts under normal conditions and there 
would be little likelihood of measurable impacts even under accidents. 
(See pp. 19-20, 24-25, 33-35, 38, 45, 47-49).
    (3) Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts would not be 
significant because the very minor amount of air emissions from all of 
the life cycle stages would likely result in no measurable 
environmental impacts under normal conditions and there would be little 
likelihood of measurable impacts even under accidents. (See pp. 20, 26, 
32, 47, 48-49).
    (4) Noise impacts. Noise impacts would not be significant to either 
human or wildlife populations because noise-producing activities would 
be of short duration under all life cycle stages and the facilities 
where the activities would take place are well-buffered from sensitive 
human populations. (See pp. 20, 26, 32-33).
    (5) Biotic Resources Impacts. Biotic resources impacts would not be 
significant because only negligible wildlife disturbance would result 
from any direct disturbance or from nonpoint source runoff associated 
with soil disturbance during any of the life cycle stages. 
Additionally, such disturbance would be widely dispersed at a number of 
facilities and thus even less significant at any one of the facilities. 
(See pp. 20, 26, 32-35, 38, 45, 48-49).
    (6) Socioeconomic Resources Impacts. Socioeconomic resources 
impacts would not be significant because the economic activity involved 
would simply supplement or replace other activities that might 
otherwise be

[[Page 54779]]

occurring at the facilities involved. To that extent these impacts 
would be generally positive. Since no new facilities need to be 
constructed and no facilities will be closed as a result of the 
proposed action there would be very little chance of any negative 
socioeconomic impacts occurring. Likewise, no significant cultural 
resources impacts would be expected. (See pp. 20, 26, 35).
    (7) Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts would be very unlikely 
because of the modest intensity of all activities involved in the 
Breacher life cycle and the dispersed nature of those activities. 
Coupled with their low intensity and widespread nature, the lack of 
general environmental compliance problems at any of the facilities 
involved in the Breacher life cycle reinforces this conclusion. (See 
pp. 23, 27, 36, 39, 46, 49).
    (8) Mitigation of Impacts. The use of readily available pollution 
prevention measures in place at the facilities that would be involved 
in the proposed action would be likely to mitigate the environmental 
impacts of all life cycle stages to the point of being undetectable, or 
at the most negligible. (See pp. 23, 27, 36-37, 46, 49).
    c. Summary of the Significance of Environmental Consequences and 
Mitigation Opportunities. Because of the relatively modest number of 
Breacher vehicles anticipated to be constructed, existing and 
anticipated environmental compliance at the various Breacher 
facilities, and the availability of mitigation measures such as in-
place pollution prevention and nonpoint source control programs, these 
impacts are not expected to be significant. All military and civilian 
facilities have in-place pollution prevention, pollution control, and 
emergency preparedness programs. None of these facilities have 
extensive environmental compliance problems. Thus, the direct, indirect 
and cumulative impacts of the proposed action or alternatives would not 
be expected to cause significant adverse impacts to the human 
environment.
    Alternatives Considered: Alternatives considered in this 
environmental assessment include: (1) the proposed action (preferred 
alternative) of manufacturing 313 Breacher vehicles by tearing down and 
recycling existing M1 Abrams tanks; (2) a ``no-action'' alternative 
halting the current program as of June 1966; (3) a ``location 
alternative'' that would consist of carrying out the proposed action at 
a different facility; (4) a ``higher-production'' alternative of 500 
vehicles rather than the 313 vehicles proposed in the preferred 
alternative; and (5) an ``unrecycled alternative'' that would involve 
carrying out the proposed action using all new components rather than 
recycling M1 Abrams tank chassis. No other alternatives have been 
considered because the demonstrated need for the Breacher system to 
carry out the minefield breaching and countermine missions makes the 
five alternatives considered above a reasonable range of alternatives.

Determination

    Based on the analyses in the LCEA, production and deployment of the 
Breacher do not constitute a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of 
NEPA. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed 
action is not required.
Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-27013 Filed 10-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P