[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18078-18082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-8396]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


National Nuclear Security Administration, Record of Decision for 
the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the National 
Ignition Facility

AGENCY: Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a 
separate agency within the Department of Energy (DOE), is issuing this 
Record of Decision (ROD) for the National Ignition Facility (NIF), a 
key component of DOE's science-based stewardship of the nation's 
nuclear weapons stockpile. This ROD is based, in part, on the 
information and analysis contained in the National Ignition Facility 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to the Stockpile 
Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 
(SSM PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0236-S1). Other factors that influenced the 
decision include mission responsibilities of the Department. DOE's 
decision is to continue to construct and operate the NIF as analyzed in 
the SSM PEIS and the SEIS. This decision constitutes the no action 
alternative of continuing ongoing activities (DOE's Preferred 
Alternative) as described in the SEIS. As a result of this decision, 
DOE will make no changes in the design of NIF, will undertake no 
deviations in construction techniques, and will impose no operational 
changes in the NIF.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the SEIS or 
this ROD, please contact Scott L. Samuelson, NIF Field Manager, U. S. 
Department of Energy, 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550-9234, phone 
(925) 423-0593.
    For information on NNSA's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
process, contact Henry Garson, NEPA Compliance Officer for NNSA's 
Defense Programs, (301) 903-0470. For information on DOE's NEPA 
process, please contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 
Policy and Compliance, EH-42, U. S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20585, phone (202) 586-4600 or 
leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) was 
established in 1952 as a multi-disciplinary research and development 
center, and is operated by the University of California for the 
Department of Energy. LLNL is located in Livermore, California, about 
40 miles southeast of San Francisco. LLNL consists of two portions, the 
main site in Livermore and the 300 Area near Tracy, California. The NIF 
is currently being constructed at the LLNL main site and is over 95% 
complete. The NIF is a part of the DOE's development of science-based, 
rather than underground nuclear test-based, stewardship of the nuclear 
weapons stockpile. In NIF, nuclear fusion of very small amounts of 
hydrogen isotopes is expected to be achieved using the energy inherent 
in laser light. The environmental consequences of construction and 
operation of NIF were addressed in detail in Appendix I of the SSM 
PEIS. The ROD for the SSM PEIS was published in the Federal Register on 
December 26, 1996 (61 FR 68014). In the ROD, DOE announced a decision 
to proceed with construction and operation of NIF at LLNL. Ground-
breaking for NIF occurred on May 29, 1997.
    On September 3, 1997, excavation activities at the NIF site 
uncovered capacitors containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) oil and 
other items

[[Page 18079]]

(buried drums that on analysis contained no hazardous, toxic and/or 
radioactive material). Several of the capacitors had leaked, 
contaminating surrounding soil. The capacitors and surrounding soil 
were cleaned up in accordance with federal, state and local 
requirements under a Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) removal action under paragraph 
300.415 of the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR part 300). The 
possibility of such an event was unforeseen and therefore was not 
addressed in the SSM PEIS.
    On September 22, 1997, the plaintiffs in NRDC v. Richardson, Civ. 
No. 97-936 (SS) (D.O.C.) filed a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure, in which they alleged that DOE knew, but did 
not adequately analyze and disclose, the risk of building NIF in an 
area that may contain buried hazardous, toxic, and/or radioactive 
waste. DOE denied the allegations in the plaintiffs' motion. In a Joint 
Stipulation and Order (hereafter, ``Order''), which settled all claims 
in the plaintiffs'' Rule 60(b) motion, DOE agreed to conduct an 
assessment of ``* * * the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse 
environmental impacts of continuing to construct and of operating NIF 
at LLNL with respect to any potential or confirmed contamination in the 
area by hazardous, toxic, and/or radioactive materials'' and to present 
the results in an SEIS.
    As agreed upon in the Order, DOE conducted characterization studies 
to determine the presence of any additional buried hazardous, toxic, 
and/or radioactive materials in the northeast corner of LLNL, where the 
NIF site is located. The progress of the characterization activities 
was documented to the court in the form of quarterly reports. The 
characterization activities are now complete and the results of these 
activities have been analyzed in the SEIS. The characterization studies 
did not detect the presence of any additional buried hazardous, toxic, 
and/or radioactive materials that would adversely impact human health 
and/or the environment.
    Over the period of October 7-12, 1998, approximately one year after 
the Order, workers conducting routine drainage maintenance operations 
in the center of the East Traffic Circle (ETC) area uncovered debris. 
This location is outside the NIF construction area. Soil samples 
collected in the ETC area indicated that shallow soil in some locations 
contained residual PCB concentrations above the industrial cleanup 
level. These PCBs are believed to represent residual contamination from 
a 1984 landfill closure in the ETC area. In consultation with 
regulatory agencies, the surface soil was removed and sent to an EPA-
approved hazardous waste disposal facility.
    NEPA Process. On September 25, 1998, DOE issued a Notice of Intent 
(NOI) for preparation of the SEIS. On August 5, 1999, DOE issued an 
amended NOI for preparation of the SEIS to keep the public informed of 
the revised schedule for this SEIS. In October 1999, DOE published the 
Draft NIF SEIS, which evaluated the technical issues discussed in this 
ROD as they related to the evaluation of `` * * * the reasonably 
foreseeable significant adverse environmental impacts of continuing to 
construct and of operating NIF at LLNL, with respect to any potential 
or confirmed contamination in the area by hazardous, toxic and/or 
radioactive materials.''
    The scope of the SEIS is based upon: (1) Any changes to the NIF 
proposed action not previously addressed in the SSM PEIS, including the 
requirements in the Joint Stipulation and Order, that are relevant to 
environmental concerns; and (2) any significant new circumstances or 
information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the NIF 
proposed action or its impacts, including the requirements in the Joint 
Stipulation and Order, that were not previously addressed in the SSM 
PEIS.
    The public comment period for the Draft NIF SEIS began on November 
5, 1999, and ended on December 20, 1999. During the comment period, 
public meetings were held in Washington, D.C., and Livermore, 
California. In addition, the public was encouraged to provide comments 
via mail, fax, Internet and telephone. Over 200 public comments were 
received. The Notice of Availability for the Final SEIS was published 
in the Federal Register on February 23, 2001 (66 FR 11568). Volume I of 
the Final SEIS contains changes made to the Draft SEIS in response to 
the public comment process, while Volume II, the Response to Public 
Comment, describes the public comment process, provides transcripts of 
the public meetings, presents comment summaries and responses, and 
provides copies of all comments received.
    Purpose and Need. DOE's purpose and need for the NIF remains the 
same as that analyzed in the SSM PEIS. The NIF will provide a unique 
capability as a key component of DOE's science-based stewardship of the 
nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. Planned experiments with NIF at 
temperatures and pressures near those that occur in nuclear weapon 
detonations will provide data needed to verify certain aspects of 
sophisticated computer models. Those models are needed to simulate 
weapons physics, thereby providing insights on the reliability of the 
weapons stockpile. As a multipurpose inertial confinement fusion 
facility, the NIF will also be important to fusion energy research 
(e.g., next critical step in scientific evaluation of inertial fusion 
energy as a future environmentally attractive energy source), basic 
science (e.g., providing insight to the origin of the universe), and 
technology (e.g., developing new technologies to aid U.S. industrial 
competitiveness in optics, lasers, and integrated circuit 
manufacturing).
    As stated above, DOE prepared the SEIS to address (1) any changes 
to the NIF proposed action not previously addressed in the SSM PEIS 
that are relevant to environmental concerns, including the requirements 
in the Order; and (2) any significant new circumstances or information 
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the NIF proposed 
action or its impacts, that were not previously addressed in the SSM 
PEIS. Among the issues potentially contained in the former category, 
this SEIS evaluates the issues raised by the Conference Report 
accompanying the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 
Fiscal Year 2001, regarding the potential for operating NIF at less 
than the planned 192 beams. The SEIS also evaluates whether the results 
of the characterization studies completed pursuant to the Order should 
affect the manner in which DOE proceeds with construction and operation 
of the NIF.
    Proposed Action and Alternatives Considered. The SEIS examines 
alternatives related to continuing construction and eventual operation 
of NIF in light of the discovered PCB waste in the NIF construction 
area and residual PCB contamination in the ETC area. The SEIS also 
presents results of the characterization studies that DOE conducted and 
completed in 1998 and 1999 pursuant to the Joint Stipulation and Order.
    The site characterization activities necessary to meet the 
requirements of the Order were carried out in two phases. Phase I 
required a review of all available reports, studies, maps, aerial 
photographs, and other available records, as well as interviews with 
workers and retirees who are reasonably known to have knowledge of the 
potential existence and location of buried materials containing the 
mentioned substances in any of seven specified areas around and 
including

[[Page 18080]]

the NIF construction site. Phase II consisted of the remainder of the 
required activities, as summarized here. The Order required 
identification of any areas where the materials in question may have 
been buried and required that appropriate geophysical surveys be 
carried out to further investigate such areas. Potential hazardous 
waste burial sites would then be investigated by, at a minimum, 
conducting soil boring and/or soil vapor surveys. Finally, the Order 
required the construction of one or more groundwater monitoring wells 
in the affected areas to monitor impacts from de-watering activities at 
the NIF construction site.
    The Phase I and II investigations suggest that there is a low 
likelihood that significant quantities of additional previously 
unidentified buried hazardous, toxic, or radioactive objects remain in 
the stipulated areas. This conclusion is based on the results of the 
series of increasingly detailed inquiries conducted to identify and 
investigate suspect areas. This approach ensured wide coverage while 
providing convincing evidence of the absence of any further 
undocumented buried hazardous, toxic, or radioactive objects in likely 
areas. A comprehensive review was made of the current data, geophysical 
studies were conducted and site investigations, such as groundwater 
monitoring wells, soil boreholes and excavations, were performed. On 
the basis of the above findings, it was concluded that the only 
significant source of previously unknown or undiscovered buried 
hazardous, toxic, or radioactive waste existing in the northeastern 
quadrant at the time NIF construction began was the capacitor landfill 
discovered in September 1997. The elevated concentrations of residual 
PCBs discovered in soil in the ETC area in 1998 were from an already 
known past waste disposal site. Both the capacitor landfill area in the 
NIF construction area and the residual PCB contamination in the ETC 
area were cleaned up to action levels agreed upon by the CERCLA 
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), thereby reducing the actual or 
potential contamination in these areas.
    No Action Alternative--The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
regulations implementing NEPA require that an EIS consider a no action 
alternative (40 CFR 1502.14(d)). DOE has examined the no action 
alternative from two perspectives. The first reflects the stats quo, 
i.e., the ongoing activity of continuing to construct and operate NIF. 
The second no action alternative is to cancel the NIF project, at which 
time construction would cease and the site would be available for use 
for another purpose.
    No Action: Continuing Activity to Construct and Eventually Operate 
NIF (DOE's Preferred Alternative)--DOE's current activities to 
construct and eventually to operate NIF, as proposed and analyzed in 
Appendix I of the SSM PEIS and decided in the SSM PEIS ROD dated 
December 26, 1996, represents the status quo. DOE believes that 
continuing ongoing activity is an appropriate no action alternative. 
CEQ has indicated that, in the case of ongoing activities, the no 
action alternative represents the status quo. (``[T]he `no action' 
alternative may be thought of in terms of continuing with the present 
course of action until that action is changed'' [Forty Most Asked 
Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, Question 3, 46 FR 18026, 
18027 (March 23, 1981)].) Under this alternative, DOE would make no 
changes in the design of NIF, would undertake no deviations in 
construction techniques, and would impose no operational changes in 
response to the information regarding site contamination obtained 
during the characterization studies completed pursuant to the Joint 
Stipulation and Order. The SEIS describes the consequences of 
continuing to construct and of operating NIF with respect to potential 
buried hazardous, toxic, or radioactive material in the Stipulated 
Areas. The SSM PEIS analyzed this alternative in detail with respect to 
all other aspects of construction and operation.
    No Action: Ceasing Construction--Because no action could also be 
interpreted as ``no project at LLNL,'' DOE has determined that ceasing 
construction of NIF at LLNL is also an appropriate no action 
alternative. This alternative consists of several options described in 
the SEIS. This alternative was also discussed in the SSM PEIS as the no 
action alternative. DOE believes that ``no action'', when defined as 
ceasing construction of NIF, is not a reasonable alternative. This 
alternative would be reasonable to consider only if the 
characterization studies had determined that the contamination caused 
by buried hazardous, toxic, or radioactive materials was so extensive 
as to raise serious questions of the advisability of continuing the 
project in its current location. This is not the case, since no further 
contamination was found at levels or in extent great enough to require 
halting NIF construction to protect human health or the environment.

Options for No Action: Ceasing Construction

    Placing the Facility in a Safe Condition--A decision to cease 
construction of NIF at LLNL could be followed by activities to place 
the facility in a condition that would permanently protect workers, the 
public, and the environment. The facility would then be left idle 
(``mothballed,'' as described in public comment).
    Using the Facility for Another Program--The NIF facility would be 
completed to the extent that it could be used for another program. 
Depending on the intended alternative use of the facility, the level of 
construction activity might be less than or equal to that required for 
completion of NIF. The major difference would be that the NIF 
scientific equipment would not be installed.
    Demolishing NIF--The completed structures of the facility would be 
demolished, excavations filled, and the site returned to a condition 
that would be appropriate for open space.
    Action Alternatives (Eliminated from Detailed Study)--The CEQ 
regulations require that an EIS analyze all reasonable alternatives to 
the proposed action and discuss the reasons why other alternatives were 
eliminated from detailed study [40 CFR 1502.14(a)]. As discussed below, 
DOE believes that the facts surrounding the proposed action and purpose 
and need for the SEIS lead to the conclusion that there are no 
reasonable action alternatives under the circumstances, and, therefore, 
all action alternatives were eliminated from detailed study.
    Change NIF Construction and Operation--Possible action alternatives 
would consist of various ways to modify the manner in which DOE 
continues to construct and operate the facility to take into account 
the results of the characterization studies. Changes in construction 
and operation of NIF might be reasonable to consider as alternatives 
only if the characterization studies concluded that there are 
additional buried hazardous, toxic, or radioactive materials or soils 
in the area of the NIF construction site that would adversely affect 
human health and the environment. Phase I and II evaluations of the NIF 
site pursuant to the Order have uncovered no positive indications of 
additional hazardous, toxic, and/or radioactive material. The hazardous 
materials discovered during NIF construction have already been cleaned 
up. Contamination at these locations is now below levels of concern for 
impacts to the environment or human health.

[[Page 18081]]

Characterization studies have shown that there is a very low likelihood 
of further existence of any buried wastes. Further NIF construction and 
NIF operations would result in no additional potential adverse health 
impacts to workers or the public from hazardous, toxic, and/or 
radiological materials related to buried wastes beyond those analyzed 
in the SSM PEIS. Therefore, no design, construction, or operation 
modifications to address the presence of such materials need be 
considered. Any contaminants within the area defined in the Joint 
Stipulation and Order, and outside the NIF construction site, will be 
addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act process with CERCLA RPM oversight.
    Hypothetical Changes in NIF Operations Not Related to Buried 
Objects or Residual Site Contamination--Public comments received on the 
draft SEIS stated that certain changes related to NIF operations should 
be added to the scope of the NIF SEIS, including the following: use of 
plutonium, uranium, and lithium hydrides as targets for experiments; 
lower energy operations; reduced number of beam lines (e.g., a half-
sized NIF); consideration of potential damage to optics; and more 
frequent maintenance and cleaning of optics. DOE examined these 
operational changes and determined they were not appropriate topics for 
the NIF SEIS for the following reasons.
    The process for determining whether DOE will supplement the SSM 
PEIS to address a proposal to use plutonium, uranium, or lithium 
hydrides as targets was established in the Memorandum Opinion and Order 
issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on 
August 19, 1998, in NRDC v. Richardson. By the terms of that Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, DOE, no later than January 1, 2004, will either (1) 
determine that experiments using plutonium, uranium (other than 
depleted uranium), lithium hydride, and certain other materials will 
not be conducted in the NIF or (2) prepare a Supplemental SSM PEIS 
analyzing the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of such 
experiments. DOE will continue to investigate the need for these 
experiments and will make the required determination or begin the 
appropriate SEIS by the specified date. However, until DOE has 
completed the necessary studies and determined that such experiments 
are needed, there is no proposal for such experiments, and it would be 
inappropriate to begin a SEIS on a hypothetical proposal.
    While lower energy operations and operation with a reduced number 
of beam lines may be considered, these potential changes are within the 
envelope of operations evaluated in the SSM PEIS and, for these 
reasons, are not evaluated in detail as a distinct alternative in the 
SEIS. Consistent with language in the Conference Report accompanying 
the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, which 
directed DOE to examine these issues, the SEIS includes an analysis of 
lower energy operations and operation with a reduced number of beam 
lines, both in terms of the envelope of operations analyzed in the SSM 
PEIS and in absolute terms. The SSM PEIS evaluated operations of NIF in 
an enhanced mode with a maximum credible yield of 45 megajoules per 
shot, a maximum tritium inventory of 500 Ci, a tritium throughput of 
1,750 Ci/yr, and tritium effluents of 30 Ci/yr. Operations with fewer 
beam lines and/or at less energy would result in less or no yield per 
shot, less tritium inventory, less tritium throughput, and less tritium 
effluents. Since the absolute impacts from the full NIF would be very 
low, as documented in the SSM PEIS, the SEIS concludes that any 
differences between such impacts of the reduced options would be 
inconsequential, irrespective of their relative magnitudes.
    Public comment also requested that the SEIS address more frequent 
damage to optics, more frequent maintenance of optics, and more 
frequent cleaning of optics. DOE has examined this issue and concluded 
that the impacts to workers and the public from damage to the final 
optics in the beam lines has already been included in the impact 
analysis conducted as part of the SSM PEIS. The actual frequency with 
which optics components will have to be cleaned, adjusted, repaired, or 
replaced would not be determined until the facility is completed and 
tested.
    The NIF laser facility includes 192 beam lines consisting of more 
than 10,000 discrete optical components. The NIF target area provides 
confinement of tritium and activation products by providing physical 
barriers and controlling air flow. The facility operates in a pulsed 
mode; maintenance and repair of the beamlines would not occur during a 
pulse. The SSM PEIS evaluated risks to workers and the public and 
generation of wastes for an enhanced mode with bounding yield. Normal 
operations are expected to be within those bounds, including variations 
in maintenance and repair of optics. For these reasons, DOE determined 
that this was not an appropriate issue or alternative for inclusion for 
detailed study in the SEIS.
    Constructing NIF at Another Site--Constructing NIF at another site 
at this time is not a reasonable option from a technical perspective. 
The conventional construction of the NIF facility is now more than 95% 
complete. The NIF requires large-scale laser research, development, and 
support facilities that are present only at LLNL. In order to meet the 
purpose and need for NIF, the required scientific infrastructure and 
facilities that are now present at LLNL would have to be developed at 
another site.
    Moving NIF to another site might be reasonable to consider only if 
the characterization studies identified additional major sources of 
further contamination from buried hazardous, toxic, or radioactive 
materials. No additional previously unknown or undiscovered sources of 
contaminated objects were found at the NIF construction area as a 
result of Phase I and Phase II characterization activities, and the 
impacts of cleanup were minor (below levels of concern for human 
health). The residual contamination found at the ETC area is at a 
location different from that of the NIF construction site and would not 
affect NIF construction or operation. Moving NIF to another site would 
not provide the public substantial additional protection from buried 
hazardous or radioactive materials. Any such materials found would be 
removed under any circumstances.
    Abandonment of the NIF Facility--Although suggested in public 
comment on the draft SEIS, this option was considered but not evaluated 
in detail in the SEIS. DOE has determined that it is unreasonable to 
stop construction and abandon the site or facility without further 
modifications. The facility would not be protected in any way from 
degradation by the elements or from unwanted intrusion. Abandonment 
without placing the facility in a safe condition would violate DOE's 
principles of integrated safety management and good management 
practices. Abandonment could violate one or more federal regulations, 
state regulations, or DOE orders and guidelines. Abandonment would not 
enable DOE to meet the purpose and need for which the NIF is being 
constructed.
    Summary of Environmental Impacts. The SEIS evaluates the impacts of 
the preferred alternative and describes the Phase I and Phase II 
characterization studies. The SEIS also evaluates the potential impacts 
(including cumulative impacts) to LLNL workers and to the

[[Page 18082]]

public from construction and operation of the NIF because of the 
possible presence of buried hazardous, toxic, or radioactive materials 
in the areas in the northeastern quadrant of the LLNL as stipulated in 
the Order.
    Results of Phase I and Phase II investigations show that there is a 
low likelihood that significant quantities of buried hazardous, toxic, 
or radioactive materials remain in the stipulated areas. This 
conclusion is based on the results of the series of increasingly 
detailed inquiries conducted to identify and investigate suspected 
areas. This approach ensured wide coverage while providing convincing 
evidence of the absence of any further undocumented buried hazardous, 
toxic, or radioactive objects in likely areas. A comprehensive review 
was made of the current data from the existing 450 groundwater 
monitoring wells and extensive soil borings. A total of four 
magnetometer surveys, two electrical conductivity surveys and one 
ground penetrating radar survey was conducted. Six new groundwater 
monitoring wells were installed, 31 soil boreholes were drilled, and 11 
test excavations were performed. The results of the Phase I and II 
investigations were presented in the SEIS.
    On the basis of the above findings, DOE has concluded that the only 
significant source of previously unknown or undiscovered buried 
hazardous, toxic, or radioactive waste existing in the northeastern 
quadrant at the time NIF construction began was the capacitor landfill, 
discovered in September 1997. The elevated concentrations of residual 
PCBs discovered in soil in the ETC area in 1998 were from a known 
former waste disposal site. Both the capacitor landfill area at the NIF 
construction site and the residual PCB contamination in the ETC area 
were cleaned up to action levels agreed upon by the CERCLA RPMs, 
thereby reducing the actual or potential contamination in these areas.
    DOE's analysis of soil and groundwater data, including data 
collected in support of the capacitor landfill removal and Phase I and 
II investigations, concluded that levels of contamination are well 
below those that would impact human health and the environment. Current 
and future levels of PCB contamination in groundwater are calculated to 
be well below levels considered to present a risk to the public. 
Construction and operation of NIF would not adversely affect 
groundwater because no groundwater withdrawals or discharges would 
occur from this facility. Ongoing remediation activities will continue 
to improve groundwater quality for both no action alternatives--(1) 
continuing construction and operation of NIF and (2) ceasing 
construction of NIF. Potential impacts on the human environment at LLNL 
are below any level of concern.
    Environmentally Preferable Alternative. Environmental impacts were 
estimated to be small for both no action alternatives as the levels of 
contamination found at LLNL in the NIF site are well below those that 
would impact human health and the environment. The no action 
alternative of stopping NIF construction without relocation to another 
site would impair the ability of NNSA to meet the purpose and need for 
which NIF is being constructed, and is not considered a reasonable 
alternative. Nonetheless, a decision to cease construction of NIF at 
LLNL, if followed by activities to place the facility in a condition 
that would permanently protect workers, the public, and the 
environment, or to use the facility for another program with less 
environmental impacts than NIF operation, would be the environmentally 
preferable alternative, albeit an unreasonable alternative from NNSA's 
standpoint.
    Comments on the Final SEIS. During the 30-day period following 
notice that the Final SEIS had been filed on February 23, 2001, the 
NNSA received no comments on the Final SEIS.
    Other Considerations. Cost and technical considerations have been 
taken into account in the selection of the preferred alternative. NNSA 
reviewed the mission need for NIF in a ``30-Day Review,'' a review by 
the NIF Programs'' Target Physics Review Committee and a report focused 
upon the role of NIF in the Stockpile Stewardship Program. NIF is one 
of a set of essential capabilities that is needed to address the 
significant technical challenges associated with developing a science-
based understanding of the nuclear stockpile. Given the continuing 
requirement for NIF, the cost considerations relate to continuing the 
construction at the existing site or starting the construction at a new 
site. Accordingly, completing the construction at LLNL offers a 
significant cost advantage.
    Decision. NNSA has decided to continue the current activities to 
construct and eventually to operate NIF, as analyzed in Appendix I of 
the SSM PEIS and the SEIS. This decision was analyzed in the SEIS as 
the no action alternative of continuing to construct and eventually to 
operate NIF, which is NNSA's preferred alternative, and the only 
reasonable alternative analyzed in the SEIS. Under this action, NNSA 
would make no changes in the design of NIF, would undertake no 
deviations in construction techniques, and would impose no operational 
changes in response to the information regarding site contamination 
obtained during the characterization studies completed pursuant to the 
Joint Stipulation and Order.
    NNSA prepared this Record of Decision pursuant to the Council on 
Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural 
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 
parts 1500-1508) and the Department of Energy Regulations implementing 
NEPA (10 CFR part 1021). In making this ROD for the NIF SEIS, the 
Department considered the analysis in the NIF SEIS and the SSM PEIS, 
along with other factors such as the NNSA statutory mission 
requirements and national security policy.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. this 30th day of March, 2001.
Spencer Abraham,
Secretary of Energy.
[FR Doc. 01-8396 Filed 4-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P