[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 181 (Monday, September 20, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50797-50806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24456]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision: Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for 
Continued Operation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the State 
of New Mexico

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this Record of 
Decision on the continued operation of the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory (LANL) in the State of New Mexico. This Record of Decision 
is based on the information and analysis contained in the Site-Wide 
Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, DOE/EIS-0238 (including the classified 
supplement), and other factors, including the mission responsibilities 
of the Department, and comments received on the final Site-Wide 
Environmental Impact Statement. DOE has decided to implement the 
Preferred Alternative, which, with certain limitations, is the Expanded 
Operations Alternative. This alternative would expand operations at 
LANL, as the need arises, to increase the level of existing operations 
to the highest reasonably foreseeable levels, and to fully implement 
the mission elements assigned to LANL.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the Site-
Wide Environmental Impact Statement or to receive a copy of the Site-
Wide Environmental Impact Statement or other information related to 
this Record of Decision, contact: Corey Cruz, Document Manager, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Albuquerque Operations Office, P.O. Box 5400, 
Albuquerque, NM 87185, (505) 845-4282.
    For information on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
process, contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy 
and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at 
(800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    DOE prepared this Record of Decision pursuant to the regulations of 
the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 
Parts 1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 
1021). This Record of Decision is based, in part, on DOE's Site-Wide 
Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, (DOE/EIS-0238). LANL is located in north-
central New Mexico, 60 miles (96 kilometers) north-northeast of 
Albuquerque, 25 miles (40 kilometers) northwest of Santa Fe, and 20 
miles (32 kilometers) southwest of Espanola. LANL occupies an area of 
approximately 27,832 acres (11,272 hectares), or approximately 43 
square miles (111 square kilometers), of which 86 percent lies within 
Los Alamos County and 14 percent within Santa Fe County. The Fenton 
Hill site (Technical Area [TA]-57), a remote site 20 miles (32 
kilometers) west of LANL, occupies 15 acres (6 hectares) in Sandoval 
County on land leased from the U.S. Forest Service. LANL is divided 
into 49 separate Technical Areas. LANL is a multi-disciplinary, 
multipurpose national laboratory engaged in theoretical and 
experimental research and development. DOE has assigned elements of 
each of its four principal missions (National Security, Energy 
Resources, Environmental Quality, and Science) to LANL, and has 
established and maintains several capabilities in support of these 
mission elements, including applications of science and technology to 
the nuclear weapons program. These capabilities also support 
applications for other Federal agencies and other organizations in 
accordance with national priorities and policies.
    DOE is currently engaged in other NEPA reviews that include LANL as 
an alternate location for the action under consideration. These other 
NEPA reviews include programmatic and project Environmental Impact 
Statements for Waste Management and Surplus Plutonium Disposition. 
Since these other Environmental Impact Statements identify potential 
new or expanded activities for LANL, the impacts of these activities 
are described under the Preferred Alternative in the Site-Wide 
Environmental Impact Statement. The nature of the decisions in this 
Record of Decision with regard to the Waste Management programmatic and 
project proposals is simply to reserve infrastructure at LANL pending 
completion of these programmatic and project reviews and the 
corresponding decision document. With regard to the Surplus Plutonium 
Disposition program, the nature of the decision in this Record of 
Decision is to maintain the competency and capability to fabricate the 
Lead Assemblies as evaluated in the Surplus Plutonium Disposition 
Environmental Impact Statement (SPD EIS). However, the availability and 
capacity of facilities to perform such work may be limited because of 
competing priorities from the weapons program. DOE's resolution of any 
such competing priorities will be reflected in the Record of Decision 
for the SPD EIS.
    DOE was directed by Congress (Pub. L. 105-119) to convey or 
transfer parcels of DOE land in the vicinity of LANL to the 
Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New Mexico, and the Secretary of the 
Interior, in trust for the San Ildefonso Pueblo. Such parcels, or 
tracts of land, must not be required to meet the national security 
mission of LANL and must also meet other criteria established by the 
Act. DOE has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement to examine 
the potential environmental impacts associated with the conveyance or 
transfer of 10 specific parcels. EPA published a Notice of Availability 
for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Conveyance and 
Transfer of Certain Land Tracts Administered by the Department of 
Energy and Located at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos and 
Santa Fe Counties, New Mexico, in the Federal Register on February 26, 
1999.
    The Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement considers the 
environmental impacts of ongoing and proposed activities at LANL. DOE 
expects that it will continue to suggest new programs, projects, and 
facilities for LANL (or consider LANL as an alternative site for such 
facilities or activities). These new proposals will be analyzed in 
programmatic or project-specific NEPA reviews, as they become ripe for 
decision. Subsequent NEPA reviews

[[Page 50798]]

will make reference to, and be tiered from, the Site-wide Environmental 
Impact Statement; and subsequent DOE decisions on these proposals may 
amend this Record of Decision.

Alternatives Considered

    DOE analyzed four broad alternative levels of operation at the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory. The four alternatives are as follows:

Alternative 1--No Action

    The No Action Alternative reflects the levels of operation at LANL 
that are currently planned. This includes operations that provide for 
continued support of DOE's four primary missions, but would not include 
an increase in the existing pit manufacturing capacity (beyond the 
current capacity of 14 pits per year) nor expansion of the low-level 
waste disposal facility at Technical Area-54 (the remaining space in 
the existing Area G footprint would be used, but some low-level waste 
would be shipped off-site for disposal). This alternative includes the 
maintenance of existing capabilities, continued support/infrastructure 
activities, and implementation of several facility construction or 
modification projects throughout LANL that have previous NEPA reviews.

Alternative 2--Expanded Operations (DOE's Preferred Alternative Except 
for Pit Manufacturing)

    The Expanded Operations Alternative would expand operations at 
LANL, as the need arises, to increase the level of existing operations 
to the highest reasonably foreseeable levels, and to fully implement 
the mission elements assigned to LANL. This includes the impacts of the 
full implementation of pit manufacturing up to a capacity of 50 pits 
per year under single-shift operations (80 pits per year using multiple 
shifts). This alternative includes the expansion of the low-level waste 
disposal site at Technical Area-54, including receipt of off-site 
wastes. In addition, this alternative includes the continued 
maintenance of existing and expanded capabilities, continued support/
infrastructure activities, and implementation of several facility 
construction or modification projects at Technical Area-53 (i.e., the 
Long-Pulse Spallation Source, the 5-Megawatt Target/Blanket 
Experimental Area, the Dynamic Experiment Laboratory, and the Isotope 
Production Facility).

Alternative 3--Reduced Operations

    The Reduced Operations Alternative reflects the minimum levels of 
operation at LANL considered necessary to maintain the capabilities to 
support DOE missions over the near-term (through the year 2007). While 
the capabilities are maintained under this alternative, this may not 
constitute full support of the mission elements currently assigned to 
LANL. This alternative reflects pit manufacturing at a level below the 
existing capacity (at 6 to 12 pits per year) and reflects shipment of 
much of the low-level waste generated at LANL for off-site disposal 
(on-site disposal would be limited to those waste types for which LANL 
has a unique capability at Area G). This alternative includes the 
maintenance of existing capabilities, continued support/infrastructure 
activities, and implementation of several facility construction or 
modification projects throughout LANL that have previous NEPA reviews; 
some of the projects previously reviewed under NEPA would be reduced in 
scope or eliminated (e.g., the Low-Energy Demonstration Accelerator 
would only be operated at the lower end of its energy range).

Alternative 4--``Greener''

    The ``Greener'' Alternative reflects increased levels of operation 
at LANL in support of nonproliferation, basic science, and materials 
recovery/stabilization mission elements, and reduced levels of 
operation in support of defense and nuclear weapons mission elements. 
All LANL capabilities are maintained for the short term under this 
alternative; however, this may not constitute full support of the 
nuclear weapons mission elements currently assigned to LANL. This 
alternative reflects pit manufacturing at a level below the existing 
capacity (at 6 to 12 pits per year) and reflects shipment of much of 
the low-level waste generated at LANL for off-site disposal (on-site 
disposal would be limited to those waste types for which LANL has a 
unique capability at Area G). This alternative includes the maintenance 
of existing capabilities, continued support/infrastructure activities, 
and implementation of several facility construction or modification 
projects at Technical Area-53 (i.e., the Long-Pulse Spallation Source, 
the 5-Megawatt Target/Blanket Experimental Area, the Dynamic Experiment 
Laboratory, and the Isotope Production Facility.) The name and general 
description for this alternative were provided by interested public 
stakeholders as a result of the scoping process.

Preferred Alternative

    In the draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, the 
Preferred Alternative was the Expanded Operations Alternative. In the 
final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, the Expanded Operations 
Alternative is the Preferred Alternative with one modification, which 
involves the level at which pit manufacturing would be implemented at 
LANL. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, DOE would expand 
operations at LANL, as the need arises, to increase the level of 
existing operations to the highest reasonably foreseeable levels. This 
expansion of operations would apply broadly to the essential science 
and technology activities across LANL, and would apply to the level of 
activity for those operations (e.g., increased throughput or increased 
numbers of experiments). The Expanded Operations alternative includes 
expansion to fully implement pit manufacturing up to the capacity of 50 
pits per year under single-shift operations (80 pits per year using 
multiple shifts) assigned to LANL in the Record of Decision for the 
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement.
    However, as a result of delays in the implementation of the 
Capability Maintenance and Improvement Project and recent additional 
controls and operational constraints applied to work conducted in the 
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Building, DOE has determined, 
as a matter of policy, to postpone any decision to expand pit 
manufacturing beyond a level of a nominal 20 pits per year in the near 
future (through the year 2007), and to study further methods for 
implementing the 50 pits per year production capacity. The revised 
Preferred Alternative reflects implementing pit manufacturing at the 
20-pit-per-year level. This postponement does not modify the long-term 
goal announced in the Record of Decision for the Stockpile Stewardship 
and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement of 50 pits 
per year (up to 80 pits per year using multiple shifts).
    The Preferred Alternative includes the expansion of the low-level 
waste disposal site at Technical Area-54. The Preferred Alternative 
also includes the continued maintenance of existing and expanded 
capabilities, continued support/infrastructure activities, and 
implementation of several facility construction or modification 
projects at Technical Area-53 (i.e., the Long-Pulse Spallation Source, 
the 5-Megawatt Target/Blanket Experimental Area, the Dynamic Experiment 
Laboratory, and the Isotope Production Facility).

[[Page 50799]]

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    The Council on Environmental Quality, in its ``Forty Most Asked 
Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations'' (46 FR 18026, 2/23/81), 
with regard to 40 CFR 1505.2, defined the ``environmentally preferable 
alternative'' as the alternative ``that will promote the national 
environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101. Ordinarily, 
this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the 
biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative 
which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and 
natural resources.''
    After considering impacts to each resource area by alternative, DOE 
has identified Alternative 3, Reduced Operations, as the 
environmentally preferable alternative. Alternative 3 was identified as 
having the fewest direct impacts to the physical environment and to 
worker and public health and safety because all operations would be at 
the lowest levels. However, the analyses indicate that there would be 
very little difference in the environmental impacts among the 
alternatives analyzed. The major discriminators among alternatives are 
collective worker risks due to radiation exposure, socioeconomic 
effects due to LANL employment changes, and electrical power demand. 
Therefore, Reduced Operations would have the fewest impacts and 
Expanded Operations would have the most.

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

    DOE weighed environmental impacts as one factor in its decision 
making. DOE analyzed the potential impacts that might occur to land 
resources; geology, geological conditions, and soils; water resources, 
air quality; ecological and biological resources, human health, 
environmental justice, cultural resources; and socioeconomic, 
infrastructure, and waste management for the four alternatives. DOE 
considered the impacts that might occur from use of special nuclear 
materials, facility accidents, and the transportation of radioactive 
and other materials associated with LANL operations. DOE considered the 
impacts of projects and activities associated with each alternative, 
the irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources, and the 
relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the 
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.
    The highest resource impacts under any of the alternatives will be 
to the electrical power infrastructure. Peak electrical demand under 
the Reduced Operations Alternative exceeds supply during the winter 
months and may result in periodic brownouts. Peak electrical demand 
under the No Action, Expanded Operations, and Greener Alternatives 
exceeds the power supply in both winter and summer, when this may 
result in periodic brownouts. (Power supply to the Los Alamos area has 
been a concern for a number of years, and DOE continues to work with 
other users in the area and power suppliers to increase supply and 
reduce use.)
    Nonradioactive hazardous air pollutants would not be expected to 
degrade air quality or affect human health under any of the 
alternatives. The differences in activities among the alternatives do 
not result in large differences in chemical usage. The activities at 
LANL are such that large amounts of chemicals are not typically used in 
any industrial process at LANL (compared to what may be used in 
commercial manufacturing facilities); but research and development 
activities involving many users dispersed throughout the site are the 
norm. Air emissions are, therefore, not expected to change by a 
magnitude that would, for example, trigger more stringent regulatory 
requirements or warrant continuous monitoring. Radioactive air 
emissions change slightly, but are within a narrow range due to the 
controls placed on these types of emissions and the need to assure 
compliance with regulatory standards. The collective population 
radiation doses from these emissions range from about 11 person-rem per 
year to 33 person-rem per year across the alternatives, and the 
radiation dose to the maximally exposed individual ranges from 1.9 
millirem per year to 5.4 millirem per year across the alternatives. 
These doses were considered in the human health impact analysis.
    The total radiological doses from normal operations over the next 
10 years to the public under any of the alternatives are relatively 
small and are not expected to result in any excess latent cancer 
fatalities (LCFs) to members of the public. Additionally, exposure to 
chemicals due to LANL operations under any of the alternatives is not 
expected to result in significant effects to either workers or the 
public. Exposure pathways associated with the traditional practices of 
communities in LANL area (special pathways) would not be expected to 
result in human health effects under any of the alternatives. The 
annual collective radiation dose to workers at LANL ranges from 170 
person-rem per year to 833 person-rem per year across the alternatives. 
These dose levels would be expected to result in from 0.07 to 0.33 
excess LCFs per year of operation, respectively, among the exposed 
workforce. These impacts, in terms of excess LCFs per year of 
operation, reflect the numbers of excess fatal cancers estimated to 
occur among the exposed members of the work force over their lifetimes 
per year of LANL operations. These impacts form an upper bound, and the 
actual consequences could be less, but probably would not be worse.
    Worker exposures to physical safety hazards are expected to result 
in a range of 417 (Reduced Operations) to 507 (Expanded Operations) 
reportable cases each year; typically, such cases would result in minor 
or short-term effects to workers, but some of these incidents could 
result in long-term health effects or even death.
    LANL employment (including the University of California employees 
and those of the two subcontractors with the largest employment among 
LANL subcontractors) ranges from 9,347 (Reduced Operations) to 11,351 
(Expanded Operations) full-time equivalents across the alternatives, as 
compared to 9,375 LANL full-time equivalents in 1996. These changes in 
employment would result in changes in regional population, employment, 
personal income, and other socioeconomic measures. Under any of the 
alternatives, these secondary effects would change existing conditions 
in the region by less than 5 percent.
    Water demand for LANL ranges from 602 million gallons (2,279 
million liters) per year to 759 million gallons (2,873 million liters) 
per year across the alternatives; the total water demand (including 
LANL and the residences and other businesses and agencies in the area) 
is within the existing DOE Rights to Water, and would result in average 
drops of 10 to 15 feet (3.1 to 4.6 meters) in the water levels in DOE 
well fields over the next 10 years. Usage, therefore, will remain 
within a fairly tight range among the alternatives. The related aspect 
of wastewater discharges is also within a narrow range for that reason. 
Outfall flows range from 218 to 278 million gallons (825 to 1,052 
million liters) per year across the alternatives, and these flows are 
not expected to result in substantial changes to existing surface or 
groundwater quantities. Outfall flows are not expected to result in 
substantial surface contaminant transport under any of the 
alternatives. However, since mechanisms for recharge to groundwater are 
highly

[[Page 50800]]

uncertain, it is possible that discharges under any of the alternatives 
could result in contaminant transport in groundwater and off the site, 
particularly beneath Los Alamos Canyon and Sandia Canyon, which have 
increased outfall flows. The outfall flows associated with the Expanded 
Operations and Greener Alternatives reflect the largest potential for 
such contaminant transport, and the flows associated with the Reduced 
Operations Alternative have the least potential for such transport.
    There is little difference in the impacts to geology, geological 
conditions, and soils across the alternatives. Wastewater discharge 
volumes with associated contaminants do change across the alternatives, 
but not to a degree noticeable in terms of impacts (such as causing 
soil erosion, for example). Under all of the alternatives, small 
quantities (as compared to existing conditions) of contaminants would 
be deposited in soils due to continued LANL operations, and the 
Environmental Restoration Project would continue to remove existing 
contaminants at sites to be remediated. Geological mapping and fault 
trenching studies at LANL are currently under way or recently completed 
to better define the rates of fault movements, specifically of the 
Pajarito Fault, and the location and possible southern termination of 
the Rendija Canyon Fault. Ongoing and recently completed seismic hazard 
studies indicate that slip rates (recurrence intervals for earthquakes) 
are within the parameters assumed in the 1995 seismic hazards study at 
LANL.
    There is little difference in the impacts to land resources between 
the No Action, Reduced Operations, and the Greener Alternatives. 
Differences among the alternatives are primarily associated with 
operations in existing facilities, and very little new development is 
planned. Therefore, these impacts are essentially the same as currently 
experienced. The Expanded Operations Alternative has very similar land 
resources impacts to those of the other three alternatives, with the 
principal differences being attributable to the visual impacts of 
lighting along the proposed transportation corridor between the 
Plutonium Facility and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building 
(this corridor will not be built under the Preferred Alternative) and 
the noise and vibration associated with increased frequency of high 
explosives testing (as compared to the other three alternatives).
    No significant adverse impact to ecological and biological 
resources is projected under any of the alternatives. The separate 
analyses of impacts to air and water resources constitute some of the 
source information for analysis of impacts in this area; as can be seen 
from the above discussion, the variation across the alternatives is not 
of a sufficient magnitude to cause large differences in effects. The 
impacts of the Expanded Operations Alternative differ from those of the 
other alternatives in that there is some projected loss of habitat; 
however, this habitat loss is small (due to limited new construction) 
compared to available similar habitat in the immediate vicinity.
    DOE expects no environmental justice impacts from the operation of 
LANL under any of the alternatives, i.e., projected impacts are not 
disproportionately high for minority or low-income populations in the 
area. DOE also analyzed human health impacts from exposure through 
special pathways, including ingestion of game animals, fish, native 
vegetation, surface waters, sediments, and local produce; absorption of 
contaminants in sediments through the skin; and inhalation of plant 
materials. The special pathways have the potential to be important to 
the environmental justice analysis because some of these pathways may 
be more important or viable for the traditional or cultural practices 
of minority populations in the area. However, human health impacts 
associated with these special pathways also will not present 
disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income 
populations.
    Under all of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement 
alternatives, there is a negligible to low potential for impacts to 
archaeological and historic resources due to shrapnel and vibration 
caused by explosives testing and contamination from emissions. 
Potential impacts will vary in intensity in accordance with the 
frequency of explosives tests and the operational levels that generate 
emissions (e.g., Reduced Operations would reflect the lowest potential, 
and Expanded Operations would reflect the highest potential). Recent 
assessments of prehistoric resources indicate a low potential compared 
to the effects of natural conditions (wind, rain, etc.). In addition to 
these potential impacts, the Expanded Operations Alternative includes 
the expansion of the low-level waste disposal site at Technical Area-
54, which contains several National Register of Historic Places sites; 
if any significant cultural resources will be adversely effected by the 
undertaking, DOE will consult with the New Mexico State Historic 
Preservation Office and other consulting parties to resolve the adverse 
effect.
    The potential impacts to specific traditional cultural properties 
would depend on their number, characteristics, and location. Such 
resources could be adversely affected by changes in water quality and 
quantity, erosion, shrapnel from explosives testing, noise and 
vibration from explosives testing, and contamination from ongoing 
operations. Such impacts would vary in intensity in accordance with the 
frequency of explosive tests and the operational levels that generate 
emissions. The current practice of consultation would continue to be 
used to provide opportunities to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to 
any traditional cultural properties located at LANL.
    LANL chemical waste generation ranges from 3,173 to 3,582 tons 
(2,878,000 to 3,249,300 kilograms) per year across the alternatives. 
LANL low-level waste generation, including low-level mixed waste, 
ranges from 338,210 to 456,530 cubic feet (9,581 to 12,837 cubic 
meters) per year across the alternatives. LANL transuranic (TRU) waste 
generation, including mixed TRU waste, ranges from 6,710 to 19,270 
cubic feet (190 to 547 cubic meters) across the alternatives. Disposal 
of these wastes at on-site or off-site locations is projected to 
constitute a relatively small portion of the existing capacity for 
disposal sites; disposal of all LANL low-level waste on the site would 
require expansion of the low-level waste disposal capacity beyond the 
existing footprint of Technical Area-54 Area G under all alternatives 
(although this is only included in the analysis of the Expanded 
Operations Alternative).
    Radioactively contaminated space in LANL facilities would increase 
by about 63,000 square feet (5,853 square meters) under the No Action, 
Reduced Operations, and Greener Alternatives (due primarily to actions 
previously reviewed under NEPA but not fully implemented at the time 
the existing contaminated space estimate was established [May 1996]). 
The Expanded Operations Alternative would increase contaminated space 
in LANL facilities by about 73,000 square feet (6,782 square meters). 
The creation of new contaminated space causes a clean-up burden in the 
future, including the generation of radioactive waste for treatment and 
disposal; the actual impacts of such clean-up actions are highly 
uncertain because they are dependent on the actual characteristics of 
the facilities, the technologies

[[Page 50801]]

available, and the applicable requirements at the time of the cleanup.
    Incident-free transportation associated with LANL activities over 
the next 10 years would be conservatively expected to cause radiation 
doses that would result in about one excess latent cancer fatality to a 
member of the public and two excess latent cancer fatalities to members 
of LANL workforce over their lifetimes under each of the Site-Wide 
Environmental Impact Statement alternatives. There is little variation 
in impacts because effects are small, and the increased transport of 
radioactive materials is not enough to make a significant change in 
those small effects.
    Transportation accidents without an associated cargo release over 
the next 10 years of LANL operations are conservatively projected to 
result in from 33 to 76 injuries and 3 to 8 fatalities (including 
workers and the public) across the alternatives. The bounding off-site 
and on-site transportation accidents over the next 10 years involving a 
release of cargo would not be expected to result in any injuries or 
fatalities to members of the public for any of the alternatives. 
Accidents were analyzed by type of material, and the maximum quantities 
were selected for analysis. These parameters do not change across the 
alternatives. Total risk also does not change appreciably across the 
alternatives because the frequency of shipments does not vary enough to 
substantially influence the result.
    The accident analyses (other than transportation and worker 
physical safety incidents/accidents) considered a variety of initiators 
(including natural and manmade phenomena), the range of activities at 
LANL, and the range of radioactive and other hazardous materials at 
LANL. Transportation accidents and the relatively frequent worker 
physical safety incidents/accidents were considered separately. The 
accidents discussed below are those that bound the accident risks at 
LANL (other than transportation and physical safety incidents/
accidents).
    The operational accident analysis included four scenarios that 
would result in multiple source releases of hazardous materials: three 
due to a site-wide earthquake and one due to a wildfire, resulting in 
three different degrees of consequences and one wildfire scenario. 
These four scenarios dominate the radiological risk due to accidents at 
LANL because they involve radiological releases at multiple facilities 
and are considered credible (that is, they would be expected to occur 
more often than once in a million years), with the wildfire considered 
likely. Another earthquake-initiated accident, labeled RAD-12, is 
facility-specific (to Building Technical Area-16-411) and is dominated 
by the site-wide earthquake accidents due to its very low frequency 
(about 1.5  x  10 -6 per year). It is noteworthy that the 
consequences of such earthquakes are dependent on the frequency of the 
earthquake event, the facility design, and the amount of material that 
could be released due to the earthquake; such features do not change 
across the alternatives, so the impacts of these accidents are the same 
for all four alternatives. The risks were estimated conservatively in 
terms of both the frequency of the events and the consequences of such 
events. (In particular, it is noteworthy that the analysis assumes that 
any building that would sustain structural or systems damage in an 
earthquake scenario does so in a manner that creates a path for release 
of material outside of the building.) The total risk of an accident is 
the product of the accident frequency and the consequences to the total 
population within 50 miles (80 kilometers). This risk ranges from 0.046 
(SITE-01, i.e., seismic event) and 0.034 (SITE-04, i.e., wildfire 
event) excess latent cancer fatalities per year of operation, to 
extremely small numbers for most of the radiological accidents. The 
risk for release of chemicals, such as chlorine, is calculated 
similarly as the product of the frequency and numbers of people exposed 
to greater than the selected guideline concentration, Emergency 
Response Planning Guideline (ERPG)-2. (ERPG-2 is the maximum airborne 
concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals 
could be exposed for up to 1 hour without irreversible or serious 
health effects or symptoms that could impair their abilities to take 
protective action). Under all alternatives, the risks for chemical 
releases range from 6.4 (SITE-01) people exposed per year of operation 
to extremely small numbers for some chemical releases. In general, such 
earthquakes would be expected to cause fatalities due to falling 
structures or equipment; this also would be true for LANL facilities. 
Thus, worker fatalities due to the direct effects of the earthquakes 
would be expected. Worker injuries or fatalities due to the release of 
radioactive or other hazardous materials would be expected to be small 
or modest increments to the injuries and fatalities due to the direct 
effects of the earthquakes.

Comments on the Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement

    DOE distributed approximately 500 copies of the final Site-Wide 
Environmental Impact Statement to Congressional members and committees, 
the State of New Mexico, various American Indian Tribal governments and 
organizations, local governments, other Federal agencies, and the 
general public. Comments were received from the U.S. Department of the 
Interior (DOI) and Chestnut Law Offices, representing San Ildefonso 
Pueblo. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not provide 
comments on the final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement stating 
in the Federal Register (64 FR 18901) that ``Review of the FEIS was not 
deemed necessary. No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing 
agency.''
    DOI identified two areas of concern with the final Site-Wide 
Environmental Impact Statement. The first concern is that the Site-Wide 
Environmental Impact Statement does not adequately assess the direct, 
indirect, and cumulative effects of programs and activities associated 
with the continued operation of LANL either on or off the site. DOI 
maintains that the existing impacts from the environmental baseline 
should be quantified and not restricted to the evaluation of only two 
site-specific projects. DOI further states that while programs and 
activities that are proposed or under way may help to reduce adverse 
impacts, these programs and activities were not adequately evaluated in 
the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement.
    Chapter 4 (Volume I) of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact 
Statement presents the environmental setting and existing conditions 
associated with LANL operations. The information presented in Chapter 4 
forms a baseline for use in evaluating the environmental impacts of the 
four Site-Wide alternatives. For all alternatives, assessment of 
significance was accomplished both quantitatively where data and 
analysis were available, and qualitatively. The assessment of the 
potential effects, both positive and adverse, of the Expanded 
Operations, Reduced Operations, Greener, and No Action Alternatives was 
based on the degree of change from baseline conditions and was 
presented in Chapter 5 (Volume I) of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact 
Statement. DOE integrated many programs and activities, including the 
Natural Resources Management Plan (see Mitigation Measures), that would 
reduce adverse impacts in its analysis of environmental impacts.
    DOI's second concern is threatened and endangered species 
protection at LANL. DOI does not concur with DOE's determination that 
implementation of

[[Page 50802]]

the Expanded Operation Alternative may affect but would not likely 
adversely affect four listed species at LANL. The DOI believes that 
measures necessary to reduce impacts to threatened and endangered 
species that are identified through the consultation process should be 
incorporated into the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement as 
required measures.
    On April 29, 1999, subsequent to DOI's submittal of comments on the 
final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, DOE initiated formal 
section 7 consultation between the DOI and DOE for DOE's proposal to 
expand existing operations at LANL. DOE sees this consultation process 
as an opportunity to further the stewardship of listed species provided 
by the recently implemented Threatened and Endangered Species 
Management Plan for LANL. Based on communications with the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, DOE anticipates that the Service will issue a 
Biological Opinion in the near future. Upon its receipt DOE will 
continue to coordinate with the Service the integration into the 
operation of LANL of any needed measures recommended in the Biological 
Opinion that will contribute to the welfare of listed species. DOE 
believes that this process should proceed on a separate, parallel track 
from that of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement process.
    The Chestnut Law Offices, representing San Ildefonso Pueblo, 
identified three issues of concern with the final Site-Wide 
Environmental Impact Statement. First, Chestnut Law Offices states that 
the environmental justice analysis is flawed because it divides San 
Ildefonso Pueblo into several different segments thereby not indicating 
any adverse impacts to the Pueblo. Chestnut Law Offices states that 
most environmental risk is at the perimeter of the laboratory directly 
affecting San Ildefonso Pueblo, and that the Site-Wide Environmental 
Impact Statement determines there is no greater impact on the Pueblo 
than on other disadvantaged communities. Chestnut Law Offices states 
that this approach in environmental justice analysis does not comply 
with Federal law and is inadequate.
    DOE prepared the environmental justice analysis in accordance with 
guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality and Executive Order 
12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 
Populations and Low-Income Populations. The segments referred to in the 
comments were used to identify and highlight the locations of low-
income and/or minority populations for the impact analyses. Using this 
tool, the San Ildefonso Pueblo was identified as housing minority and/
or low-income populations for consideration in the Environmental 
Justice analysis. DOE has not identified any disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental impacts on minority or low-
income populations under any of the alternatives analyzed in the Site-
Wide Environmental Impact Statement. To the extent that there is a 
potential for adverse impacts, DOE analysis has shown that most of the 
impact would affect all populations equally. In the cases of air 
emissions and on-site transportation, the residential populations 
nearest to LANL, which have a relatively low percentage of minority and 
low-income populations, would be affected to a greater extent than 
other populations within the 50-mile radius.
    The impacts addressed in the environmental justice analysis in the 
Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement include land resources, 
geology, soils, water resources, ecological resources, air quality, 
human health, waste management, socioeconomic, and transportation. This 
analysis includes the projected impacts due to contamination in the 
area from past LANL activities. As part of its human health impact 
analysis, DOE looked at potential exposure through special pathways, 
including ingestion of game animals, fish, native vegetation, surface 
waters, sediments, and local produce; absorption of contaminants in 
sediments through the skin; and inhalation of plant materials. For 
LANL, the special pathways influence the environmental justice analysis 
because some of these pathways are more important or viable to the 
traditional or cultural practices of minority populations in the area. 
Even considering these special pathways, DOE did not find 
disproportionately high and adverse health impacts to minority or low-
income populations.
    The Chestnut Law Offices' second concern is groundwater 
contamination due to LANL activities. The Chestnut Law Offices states 
that the final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement does not 
address the recent groundwater contamination but downplays it, and that 
this section of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement should be 
re-evaluated.
    DOE believes that drinking water quality in the Los Alamos area 
continues to meet all Federal and New Mexico chemical and radiological 
standards. In February 1999 DOE discovered, as part of implementing the 
Hydrogeologic Workplan (the multi-year effort to characterize the flow 
and extent of contamination of the main aquifer), high explosives 
contamination while drilling a well (R-25) in the western part of the 
Laboratory. Based on current knowledge, DOE believes it will take at 
least 50 years for these contaminants to reach the drinking water 
production wells approximately three and a half miles to the East of R-
25. DOE has and will continue to sample the drinking water to ensure it 
is safe. Groundwater monitoring data from implementation of the 
Hydrogeologic Workplan is still under review and evaluation. As new 
information becomes available, the LANL Environmental Surveillance and 
Compliance Program will be revised to incorporate the additional data.
    Chestnut Law Offices' third concern is that the Site-Wide 
Environmental Impact Statement does not consider the shutdown of the 
low-level waste disposal area, Area G, a reasonable alternative. The 
commentor states the alternatives in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact 
Statement are based on the assumption that LANL will be a regional low-
level waste disposal site. The commentor believes the Site-Wide 
Environmental Impact Statement does not analyze the possibility that 
another site may be chosen as the regional low-level waste disposal 
site, thereby providing the opportunity for the waste to be removed 
from Area G. The commentor states this is a serious flaw since it does 
not anticipate a clearly reasonable alternative in light of existing 
planning documents.
    The shutdown of the low-level waste disposal area, Area G, was not 
considered a reasonable alternative for analysis in the Site-Wide 
Environmental Impact Statement because Area G has a unique capability 
for the disposal of certain wastes generated by LANL. Such wastes 
include classified wastes and other wastes that would be difficult to 
transport to other sites. The Expanded Operations Alternative was the 
only alternative that analyzed the impacts of LANL being chosen as a 
regional low-level waste disposal site.
    Under the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement, which evaluated locations for treatment and disposal of low-
level radioactive waste and mixed low-level radioactive waste, these 
wastes would be treated on the site at LANL and disposed of at a 
regional site to be determined after consultation with stakeholders. 
One of the potential regional disposal sites for low-level waste is 
LANL. Therefore, in the Expanded Operations Alternative, the Site-Wide 
Environmental Impact

[[Page 50803]]

Statement addressed treatment and disposal of LANL-generated low-level 
waste, as well as disposal of off-site generated low-level waste. The 
Expanded Operations Alternative analyzes the environmental impacts and 
the footprint needed at Area G to allow for the implementation of this 
alternative.
    If LANL is not selected as a regional disposal site, some low-level 
waste could be sent off-site for disposal, as reflected in the No 
Action, Reduced, and Greener Alternatives. The current low-level waste 
capacity available at Area G is limited. If LANL were selected as a 
regional disposal site, the expansion of Area G would occur at the 
fastest rate. If LANL continues to dispose of its own wastes, the 
expansion would still occur, but at a slower rate. Currently LANL 
generates some low-level waste that, primarily because of its size and 
shape, does not meet the acceptance criteria for disposal at other DOE 
sites, such as the Nevada Test Site. However, the decision as to the 
ultimate treatment and disposal of low-level waste and mixed low-level 
waste will be made in a Record of Decision for the Waste Management 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.
    It should also be noted that the EPA, State of New Mexico, and 
representatives of the Pueblos (four Accord Pueblos) near LANL were 
invited to review and comment on the Classified Supplement for the 
Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement (EPA declined the 
invitation). Comments from that review were received shortly after the 
final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement was issued. This final 
Classified Supplement and all comments provided were considered in 
reaching the decisions in this Record of Decision.

Other Decision Factors

    As noted in the final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, 
LANL houses unique facilities and expertise that have been developed 
over the past 50 years. These have served several National Security and 
other national needs in the past. It is expected that, for the 
foreseeable future, the U.S. will maintain a nuclear weapons stockpile 
and require ``cutting edge'' science and manufacturing capabilities to 
address issues of national importance for the maintenance of that 
stockpile and for other purposes, including assuring the safety and 
reliability of that stockpile. The unique facilities and expertise at 
LANL are needed to assist in finding solutions to these issues. As 
noted in the final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, LANL's 
role in supporting DOE's missions has expanded as the DOE nuclear 
weapons complex has been downsized over the last decade. Additionally, 
it is expected that there will be continued emphasis on applying the 
unique capabilities at LANL to support DOE's basic science mission and 
to apply technologies developed in DOE laboratories to improve the U.S. 
technological position and competitiveness. These factors were also 
considered (in addition to the human health and environmental impact 
information discussed above) in reaching this Record of Decision.

Decisions

    DOE has decided to continue to operate LANL for the foreseeable 
future and to expand the scope and level of its operations at LANL. DOE 
is implementing the Preferred Alternative, that is Alternative 2, 
Expanded Operations, but with pit production limited to a capacity that 
can be accommodated within the limited space currently set aside for 
this activity in the plutonium facility (estimated at nominally 20 pits 
per year). This alternative reflects a broad expansion of science and 
technology research, and applications of this research to a variety of 
issues of national importance; this alternative also includes the 
continued maintenance of existing and expanded capabilities, and 
continued support/infrastructure activities. The following discussion 
describes the major actions to be taken, with an emphasis on those 
areas that have had the most extensive programmatic or public interest.
    It should be noted that the decisions in this Record of Decision 
will be reflected in DOE budget requests and management practices. 
However, the actual implementation of these decisions is dependent on 
DOE funding levels and allocations of DOE budget across competing 
priorities.

Pit Production and Other Plutonium Operations

    DOE remains committed to meeting pit production requirements to 
support the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. As part of its 
implementation of the Preferred Alternative, DOE will establish, over 
time, a pit production capability at LANL with a capacity of nominally 
20 pits per year; this decision reflects an intent to establish a pit 
production capability at LANL within the existing floor space set aside 
for this operation (about 11,400 ft \2\ [1060 m \2\]). This will 
eliminate the need to transfer several Technical Area-55 plutonium 
operations (to ``make room'' for pit production activities in Technical 
Area-55) either to the CMR Building, or to newly constructed nuclear 
space, as contemplated in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement. 
Thus, the Preferred Alternative for Pit Production can be implemented 
without an expansion of the plutonium operations floor space at LANL. 
The exact production capacity of this floor space is not known with 
certainty (pending process optimization studies), but has been 
characterized as nominally 20 pits per year. This level provides 
adequate capacity to meet the near-term pit production requirements to 
maintain the enduring stockpile (about 20 pits per year), as expressed 
in the Record of Decision for the Stockpile Stewardship and Management 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. While this does not change 
the 50-pit-per-year mission assignment made in the Stockpile 
Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 
Record of Decision, it does suspend full implementation of that 
decision until an undetermined time in the future.
    Implementation of the pit production mission at LANL will be 
phased. The first pit for delivery to the U.S. nuclear weapons 
stockpile will be made in 2001. It is expected that, through equipment 
installation in existing facilities, the limited production capacity of 
nominally 20 pits per year will be achieved in 2007. At these levels of 
production, there is no need to move plutonium operations from the 
Plutonium Facility, Technical Area-55, to the CMR Building, and there 
is no need to construct a corridor between Technical Area-55 and 
Technical Area-3. Thus, DOE has decided not to move these operations or 
construct the road at this time.
    Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building--As the Site-Wide 
Environmental Impact Statement was being prepared, DOE was working on 
two sets of information associated with CMR operations: (1) 
Establishment of a modern authorization basis for these operations 
(referred to as the CMR Basis for Interim Operations, or BIO); and, (2) 
studies of the seismicity of the Technical Area-55 and Technical Area-3 
areas. Both sets of information are included in the impact analyses in 
the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement (where details were not 
known, the analyses in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement 
were, in fact, bounding of the details determined through these 
efforts). Through this effort, it became apparent that the subprojects 
included in the CMR Upgrades Construction Project should be 
reprioritized and oriented to provide for the continued safe operation

[[Page 50804]]

of the CMR Building through about 2010. The single most substantive 
change in this project was to replace the proposed seismic upgrades 
with a combination of material containerization, a reduction in the 
amount of Material at Risk (or MAR, which is the amount of in-process 
material that would be subject to release if there were a catastrophic 
accident), and a substantial reduction in the amount of combustible 
material allowed in the CMR Building. With these controls in place, the 
worst-case plausible accidents involving the CMR Building would have 
minimal effects on public health (effects would be within applicable 
guidelines intended to protect human health).
    The 1996 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement analyzed the environmental impacts of 
locating a pit manufacturing capability at either LANL or the Savannah 
River Site. In December 1996, DOE issued a Record of Decision 
reestablishing the pit manufacturing mission at LANL. In August 1998, 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, while ruling in 
DOE's favor in litigation challenging the adequacy of the Stockpile 
Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, 
directed DOE to take another look at certain new studies regarding 
seismic hazards at LANL, and to provide a factual report and technical 
analysis of the plausibility of a building-wide fire at LANL's 
plutonium facility (PF-4 at Technical Area-55). The Court directed that 
DOE prepare a Supplement Analysis, pursuant to DOE's NEPA regulations 
(10 CFR 1021.314(c)), to help determine whether a supplemental 
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement should be issued to address these studies. These seismic 
studies have been released to the public and are examined in more 
detail in the draft Supplement Analysis released for public review and 
comment on July 1, 1999. On September 2, 1999, DOE issued a final 
Supplement Analysis and determined that none of the issues analyzed in 
the Supplement Analysis represents substantial changes to the actions 
considered in the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement, nor do those issues provide significant 
new information relevant to the environmental concerns discussed in 
that Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore no 
supplement to that Programmatic Environmental Statement is required.

Secondaries

    While LANL was considered as a production site for secondaries 
(components of a nuclear weapon that contains elements needed to 
initiate the fusion reaction in a thermonuclear reaction) in the 
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement, this mission was assigned to the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee. However, DOE expects LANL to maintain an understanding of 
secondary production technologies, as well as the characteristics of 
War Reserve secondaries in the stockpile.

Tritium

    LANL will continue to support both research and development and 
production activities involving tritium (neutron tube target loading 
for nuclear weapons stockpile components). These will include 
development of new reservoirs and reservoir fill operations, 
surveillance and performance testing on tritium components, tritium 
recovery and purification technologies, and production operations 
associated with neutron generator production for the stockpile. The 
expansion of these activities results in: (1) tritium throughputs on an 
annual basis increase by a factor of up to 2.5; and (2) the on-site 
inventory of tritium increases by a factor of 10.

High Explosives Processing and Testing

    Operations in this area will increase such that annual explosives 
throughput will increase to about 82,700 pounds, and the annual mock 
explosives throughput will increase to about 2,910. These quantities 
include continued research, development, and fabrication of high-power 
detonators, including support of up to 40 major product lines per year 
in support of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management program. In 
addition, the number of hydrodynamic tests will increase to about 100 
per year; the annual amount of depleted uranium will increase to about 
6,900 pounds.

Accelerator Operations

    DOE will implement several facility construction or modification 
projects at Technical Area-53: the Long-Pulse Spallation Source, the 5-
Megawatt Target/Blanket Experimental Area, the Dynamic Experiment 
Laboratory, and the Isotope Production Facility.

Expansion of Technical Area-54/Area G Low-Level Waste Disposal Area

    As part of the implementation of the Preferred Alternative, DOE 
will continue the on-site disposal of LANL generated low-level waste 
using the existing footprint at Area G low-level waste disposal area 
and will expand disposal capacity into Zones 4 and 6 at Area G (this 
expansion would cover up to 72 acres [29 hectares]). DOE will develop 
both Zones 4 and 6 in a step-wise fashion, expanding these areas as 
demand requires.

Mitigation Measures

    The Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement included a discussion 
of existing programs and plans and controls built into the operations 
at LANL, including operating within applicable regulations, DOE Orders, 
contractual requirements and approved policies and procedures. The 
following discussion outlines the mitigation measures that DOE will 
undertake to reduce the impacts of continuing to operate LANL at the 
levels outlined in this Record of Decision.

Electrical Power

    The Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement recognizes the need 
for an increase in electrical power supply and reliability under the 
Preferred Alternative as well as other alternatives analyzed. The 
impact analyses emphasize the severity of these issues and consequences 
if they are not resolved, e.g., brownouts. Solutions to power supply 
issues are essential to mitigate the effects of power demand under all 
alternatives. An operating plan for improved load monitoring, equipment 
upgrades, and optimization of some available power sources was 
discussed. Additional measures under consideration by DOE include: (1) 
Limiting operation of large users of electricity to periods of low 
demand, and contractual mechanisms to bring additional electric power 
to the region and some form of on-site cogeneration as an incremental 
resource. DOE and other users of electrical power in the area have been 
working with suppliers to resolve these foreseeable power and 
reliability issues. One solution under consideration for improved 
reliability is the provision of a third power line from the existing 
Public Service Company of New Mexico Norton substation to the existing 
LANL substations. This solution could include a new LANL substation. In 
any case, DOE is committed to manage electric power demands to prevent 
periods of brownouts by adjusting to the limitations of available power 
until a solution for a long-term increase in power is in place. DOE is 
also committed to approve and begin implementing a Utility Procurement 
Plan by November 1999.

[[Page 50805]]

Water Supply and Demand

    Prior to September 8, 1998, DOE supplied all potable water for 
LANL, Bandelier National Monument, and Los Alamos County, including the 
towns of Los Alamos and White Rock. This water was derived from DOE's 
groundwater right to withdraw 5,541.3 acre-feet or about 1,806 million 
gallons of water per year from the main aquifer. On this date, DOE 
leased these rights to the County of Los Alamos. This lease also 
included DOE's contracted annual right obtained in 1976 to 1,200 acre-
feet of San Juan-Chama Transmountain Diversion Project water. This 
lease agreement is effective for three years, at which point DOE 
expects to convey 70 percent of the water right to the County of Los 
Alamos and lease the remaining 30 percent to them. The San Juan-Chama 
rights will be transferred in their entirety to the County. On several 
occasions since 1986 through 1998, LANL operations have exceeded 30 
percent of the total DOE annual water right. The agreement between DOE 
and the County does not preclude provision of additional waters in 
excess of the 30 percent agreement, if available. However, the 
agreement also states that should the County be unable to provide water 
to its customers, the County shall be entitled to reduce water services 
to DOE in an amount equal to the water rights deficit.
    DOE is committed to managing water demand to prevent exceedances of 
DOE water rights. LANL will develop and implement by June 2000 
procedures to assure that all new projects will implement water 
conservation design and techniques. LANL will also develop water 
conservation goals and begin implementing them by October 2001.

Waste Management

    DOE is committed to the proper management and minimization of all 
wastes. LANL will integrate waste minimization into Integrated Safety 
Management by October 2000. By June 2000 LANL will develop and 
implement procedures to assure that all new projects will implement 
waste minimization for TRU and mixed TRU waste streams. In addition 
LANL will reduce by December 2005 waste from routine operations by 80% 
using 1993 as a baseline for hazardous, low-level radioactive, and 
mixed low-level radioactive wastes. Also, LANL will recycle 40% of 
sanitary waste from routine operations by December 2005.
    LANL will also purchase EPA-designated items with recycled content 
according to the conditions of Executive Order 12873. A LANL 
Implementing Requirement for waste minimization activities is currently 
in draft.

Wildfire

    The final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement included an 
accident scenario from a wildfire that was initiated on land adjacent 
to LANL and spread to the LANL site. The analysis concluded that a 
major fire is not only credible but also likely. The current and future 
risks of wildfires at LANL can only be mitigated through purposeful 
environmental intervention and active land management. LANL will 
develop by December 1999 a preliminary program plan for comprehensive 
wildfire mitigation, including construction and maintenance of 
strategic fire roads and fire breaks, creation of defensible space 
surrounding key facilities, and active forest management to reduce fuel 
loadings. LANL will prepare and begin implementation of a long-term 
strategy for wildfire mitigation actions before the start of the 2000 
fire season.

Cultural Resources

    DOE is committed through ongoing consultation processes with 
affected Native American tribes to ensure protection of cultural 
resources and sites of cultural, historic, or religious importance to 
the tribes. With input from the tribes participating in the Los Alamos 
Pueblos Project (LAPP), DOE will develop a strategy to increase the 
understanding of traditional cultural properties at LANL, to determine 
strategies for the long-term management of identified traditional 
cultural properties and sacred sites and to determine appropriate 
mitigation measures for specific traditional cultural properties. The 
strategies could include the development of access agreements to 
traditional cultural properties and sacred sites. In the past, attempts 
to identify specific traditional cultural properties at LANL have 
encountered concerns from traditional groups because of the potential 
for increased risk to these resources if they are individually 
identified; thus, DOE will explore the potential benefits and risks of 
such a study, and options to such a study, with the LAPP tribes. This 
approach is intended to ensure appropriate respect and consideration 
regarding cultural concerns, while attempting to provide the 
information and ability to mitigate or avoid potential impacts to 
traditional cultural properties (which are currently not specifically 
known, to a large extent). The goal of the consultation and 
coordination would be an agreement with the relevant Native American 
tribes for the management of these resources.
    DOE will complete an Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan 
(ICRMP) by April 2002. The ICRMP will detail how LANL will manage, 
preserve, and protect cultural resources within the scope of Federal 
and State laws, regulations, Executive Orders, standards, as well as to 
the extent practicable, follow Tribal criteria and guidelines. The 
ICRMP will provide a basis for a unified approach to address the 
multiplicity of cultural resources located on LANL lands. The plan will 
serve to streamline many of the administrative steps required by 
Federal and State laws and regulations. The scope of activities for the 
ICRMP would include development of the plan, completion of surveys of 
archeological resources and historic buildings, and implementation of 
long-term monitoring.

Natural Resources

    DOE will develop and begin implementation of an integrated Natural 
Resources Management Plan (NRMP) by October 2002, which will integrate 
the principles of ecosystem management into the critical missions of 
LANL to conserve ecosystem processes and biodiversity. The NRMP will 
support DOE's policy to manage all of its land and facilities as 
valuable national resources. This stewardship will integrate LANL's 
mission and operations with its biological, water, soil, and air 
resources in a comprehensive plan that will guide land and facility use 
decisions. The plan will consider the site's larger regional context 
and be developed in consultation with regional land managing agencies 
and owners (particularly Bandelier National Monument, Santa Fe National 
Forest, and Native American Pueblos), State agencies, and the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service. This cooperative effort will ensure a consistent, 
integrated, and structured approach to regional natural resource 
management.
    The NRMP is viewed as a sequenced planning document that will 
include specific tasks and studies as part of the process of 
development. It will include new initiatives as well as integrating 
ongoing programs, plans, and activities at LANL, some of which may be 
reassessed to ensure their contribution to the goals and objectives of 
integrated ecosystem management.

Mitigation Action Plan

    In accordance with 10 CFR 1021.331, DOE is preparing a Mitigation 
Action Plan that will identify specific actions

[[Page 50806]]

needed to implement these mitigation measures and provide schedules for 
completion. These mitigation measures represent all practicable means 
to avoid or minimize harm from the alternative selected.

Conclusion

    DOE has considered environmental impacts, stakeholder concerns, and 
National policy in its decisions regarding the management and use of 
LANL. The analysis contained in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact 
Statement is both programmatic and site specific in detail. It is 
programmatic from the broad multi-use facility management perspective 
and site specific in the detailed project and program activity 
analysis. The impacts identified in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact 
Statement were based on conservative estimates and assumptions. In this 
regard, the analyses bound the impacts of the alternatives evaluated in 
the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement. The Expanded Operations 
Alternative was defined to include activities to implement the 
programmatic decisions made or that may be made as a result of other 
DOE Environmental Impact Statements (some of which are currently in 
progress). This Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement and the 
analyses it contains can be used to support these future programmatic 
or project decisions.
    In accordance with the provisions of NEPA, its implementing 
procedures and regulations, and DOE's NEPA regulations, I have 
considered the information contained within the Site-Wide Environmental 
Impact Statement, including the classified supplement and public 
comments received in response to the final Site-Wide Environmental 
Impact Statement. Being fully apprised of the environmental 
consequences of the alternatives and other decision factors described 
above, I have decided to continue and expand the use of LANL and its 
resources as described. This will enhance DOE's ability to meet its 
primary National security mission responsibility and create an 
environment that fosters technological innovation in both the public 
and private sectors.

    Issued at Washington, DC, September 13, 1999.
Thomas F. Gioconda,
Brigadier General, USAF, Acting Assistant Secretary for Defense 
Programs.
[FR Doc. 99-24456 Filed 9-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P