[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6967-6972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-3096]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

National Nuclear Security Administration


Record of Decision: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project, Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM

AGENCY: National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) is issuing this record of decision on the 
proposed replacement of the existing Chemistry and Metallurgy (CMR) 
Building at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in Los Alamos, New 
Mexico. This record of decision is based upon the information contained 
in the ``Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Chemistry and 
Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project, Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico'', DOE/EIS-0350 (CMRR EIS), and 
other factors, including the programmatic and technical risk, 
construction requirements, and cost. NNSA has decided to implement the 
preferred alternative, alternative 1, which is the construction of a 
new CMR Replacement (CMRR) facility at LANL's Technical Area 55 (TA-
55). The new CMRR facility would include a single, above-ground, 
consolidated special nuclear material-capable, Hazard Category 2 
laboratory building (construction option 3) with a separate 
administrative office and support functions building. The existing CMR 
building at LANL would be decontaminated, decommissioned, and 
demolished in its entirety (disposition option 3). The preferred 
alternative includes the construction of the new CMRR facility, and the 
movement of operations from the existing CMR

[[Page 6968]]

building into the new CMRR facility, with operations expected to 
continue in the new facility over the next 50 years.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the CMRR 
EIS or record of decision, or to receive a copy of this EIS or record 
of decision, contact: Elizabeth Withers, Document Manager, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Los Alamos Site Office, 528 35th Street, Los 
Alamos, NM 87544, (505) 667-8690. For information on the DOE National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, 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, (202) 
586-4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The NNSA 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 
information provided in the CMRR EIS.
    LANL is located in north-central New Mexico, about 60 miles (97 
kilometers) north-northeast of Albuquerque, and about 25 miles (40 
kilometers) northwest of Santa Fe. LANL occupies an area of 
approximately 25,600 acres (10,360 hectares), or approximately 40 
square miles (104 square kilometers). NNSA is responsible for the 
administration of LANL as one of three National Security Laboratories. 
LANL provides both the NNSA and DOE with mission support capabilities 
through its activities and operations, particularly in the area of 
national security.
    Work at LANL includes operations that focus on the safety and 
reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and on programs 
that reduce global nuclear proliferation. LANL's main role in NNSA 
mission objectives includes a wide range of scientific and 
technological capabilities that support nuclear materials handling, 
processing and fabrication; stockpile management; materials and 
manufacturing technologies; nonproliferation programs; and waste 
management activities. LANL supports actinide (any of a series of 
elements with atomic numbers ranging from actinium-89 through 
lawrencium-103) science missions ranging from the plutonium-238 heat 
source program undertaken for the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) to arms control and technology development.
    The capabilities needed to execute NNSA mission activities require 
facilities at LANL that can be used to handle actinide and other 
radioactive materials in a safe and secure manner. Of primary 
importance are the facilities located within the CMR building and the 
plutonium facility (located in TAs 3 and 55, respectively). Most of the 
LANL mission support functions require analytical chemistry (AC) and 
materials characterization (MC), and actinide research and development 
support capabilities and capacities that currently exist within 
facilities at the CMR building and that are not available elsewhere. 
Other unique capabilities are located within the plutonium facility. 
Work is sometimes moved between the CMR building and the plutonium 
facility to make use of the full suite of capabilities they provide.
    The CMR building is over 50 years old and many of its utility 
systems and structural components are deteriorating. Studies conducted 
in the late 1990s identified a seismic fault trace located beneath one 
of the wings of the CMR building that increases the level of structural 
integrity required to meet current structural seismic code requirements 
for a Hazard Category 2 nuclear facility (a Hazard Category 2 nuclear 
facility is one in which the hazard analysis identifies the potential 
for significant onsite consequences). Correcting the CMR building's 
defects by performing repairs and upgrades would be difficult and 
costly. NNSA cannot continue to operate the assigned LANL mission-
critical CMR support capabilities in the existing CMR building at an 
acceptable level of risk to public and worker health and safety without 
operational restrictions. These operational restrictions preclude the 
full implementation of the level of operation DOE decided upon through 
its 1999 record of decision for the ``Site-wide Environmental Impact 
Statement for Continued Operation of Los Alamos National Laboratory'' 
(DOE/EIS-0238) (LANL SWEIS). Mission-critical CMR capabilities at LANL 
support NNSA's stockpile stewardship and management strategic 
objectives; these capabilities are necessary to support the current and 
future directed stockpile work and campaign activities conducted at 
LANL. The CMR building is near the end of its useful life and action is 
required now by NNSA to assess alternatives for continuing these 
activities for the next 50 years. NNSA needs to act now to provide the 
physical means for accommodating continuation of the CMR building's 
functional, mission-critical CMR capabilities beyond 2010 in a safe, 
secure, and environmentally sound manner.

Alternatives Considered

    NNSA evaluated the environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed relocation of LANL AC and MC, and associated research and 
development capabilities that currently exist primarily at the CMR 
building, to a newly constructed facility, and the continued 
performance of those operations and activities at the new facility for 
the next 50 years. The CMRR EIS analyzed four action alternatives: (1) 
The construction and operation of a complete new CMRR facility at TA-
55; (2) the construction of the same at a ``greenfield'' location 
within TA-6; (3) and a ``hybrid'' alternative maintaining 
administrative offices and support functions at the existing CMR 
building with a new Hazard Category 2 laboratory facility built at TA-
55, and, (4) a ``hybrid'' alternative with the laboratory facility 
being constructed at TA-6. The CMRR EIS also analyzed the no action 
alternative. These alternatives are described in greater detail below.
    Alternative 1 is to construct a new CMRR facility consisting of two 
or three new buildings within TA-55 at LANL to house AC and MC 
capabilities and their attendant support capabilities that currently 
reside primarily in the existing CMR building, at the operational level 
identified by the expanded operations alternative for LANL operations 
in the 1999 LANL SWEIS. Alternative 1 would also involve construction 
of a parking areas(s), tunnels, vault area(s), and other infrastructure 
support needs. AC and MC activities would be conducted in either two 
separate laboratories (constructed either both above ground 
(construction option 1) or one above and one below ground (construction 
option 2)) or in one new laboratory (constructed either above ground 
(construction option 3) or below ground (construction option 4)). An 
administrative office and support functions building would be 
constructed separately.
    Alternative 2 would construct the same new CMRR facility within TA-
6; the TA-6 site is a relatively undeveloped, forested area with some 
prior disturbance in limited areas that is referred to as a 
``greenfield'' site.
    Alternatives 3 and 4 are ``hybrid'' alternatives in which the 
existing CMR building would continue to house administrative offices 
and support functions for AC and MC capabilities (including research 
and development) and no new administrative support

[[Page 6969]]

building would be constructed. Structural and systems upgrades and 
repairs to portions of the existing CMR building would need to be 
performed and some portions of the building might be dispositioned. New 
laboratory facilities (as described for alternative 1) would be 
constructed either at TA-55 (alternative 3) or at TA-6 (alternative 4).
    Under any of the alternatives, disposition of the existing CMR 
building could include a range of options from no demolition 
(disposition option 1), to partial demolition (disposition option 2), 
to demolition of the entire building (disposition option 3).
    The no action alternative would involve the continued use of the 
existing CMR building with some minimal necessary structural and 
systems upgrades and repairs. Under this alternative, AC and MC 
capabilities (including research and development), as well as 
administrative offices and support activities, would remain in the 
existing CMR building. No new building construction would be 
undertaken. AC and MC operational levels would continue to be 
restricted and would not meet the level of operations determined 
necessary for the foreseeable future at LANL in the 1999 SWEIS record 
of decision.

Preferred Alternative

    In both the draft and the final CMRR EIS, the preferred alternative 
for the replacement of the existing CMR building is identified as 
alternative 1 (construct a new CMRR facility at TA-55). The preferred 
construction option would be the construction of a single consolidated 
special nuclear material (SNM) capable, Hazard Category 2 laboratory 
with a separate administrative offices and support functions building 
(construction option 3). (Special nuclear materials include actinides 
such as plutonium, uranium enriched in the isotope 233 or 235, and any 
other material that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission determines 
to be special nuclear material.) NNSA's preferred option for the 
disposition of the existing CMR building is to decontaminate, 
decommission and demolish the entire structure (disposition option 3). 
Based on the CMRR EIS, the environmental impacts of the preferred 
alternative, although minimal, would be expected to be greater than 
those of the no action alternative. Construction option 3 would have 
less impact on the environment that implementing construction options 1 
or 2; and disposition option 3 would have the greatest environmental 
impact of the disposition options analyzed.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 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. The CMRR EIS impact analysis indicates that there 
would be very little difference in the environmental impacts among the 
action alternatives analyzed and also that the impacts of these action 
alternatives would be small. After considering impacts to each resource 
area by alternative, NNSA has identified the no action alternative as 
the environmentally preferable alternative. The no action alternative 
was identified as having the fewest direct impacts to the physical 
environment and to cultural and historic resources. This is because no 
construction-related disturbances would exist and none of the CMR 
building would be demolished, as would be the case under any of the 
action alternatives analyzed for the proposed action, including the 
preferred alternative. Therefore, the no action alternative would have 
the fewest impacts.

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

    NNSA analyzed the potential impacts that might occur if any of the 
four action alternatives or the no action alternative were implemented 
for land use and visual resources; site infrastructure; air quality and 
noise; geology and soils; surface and groundwater quality; ecological 
resources; cultural and paleontological resources; socioeconomics; 
human health impacts; environmental justice; waste management and 
pollution prevention. NNSA considered the impacts that might occur from 
potential accidents associated with the four action alternatives, and 
the no action alternative as well, on LANL worker and area residential 
populations. NNSA considered the impacts of each alternative regarding 
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 CMRR EIS 
analyses identified minor differences in potential environmental 
impacts among the action alternatives including: Differences in the 
amount of land disturbed long term for construction and operations, 
ranging between about 27 and 23 acres disturbed during construction and 
between 10 and 15 acres disturbed permanently during operations; and 
differences in the potential to indirectly affect (but not adversely 
affect) potential habitat for a federally-listed threatened species and 
the potential to have no affect on sensitive habitat areas; differences 
in the potential to affect human health during normal operations and 
during accident events; differences in waste volumes generated and 
managed; and differences in transportation accident dose possibilities. 
A comparison of impacts is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Construction Impacts

    Alternative 1 (Construct New CMRR Facility at TA-55; Preferred 
Alternative): The construction of a new SNM-capable Hazard Category 2 
laboratory, an administrative offices and support functions building, 
SNM vaults and other utility and security structures, and a parking lot 
at TA-55 would affect 26.75 acres (10.8 hectares) of mostly disturbed 
land, but would not change the area's current land use designation. The 
existing infrastructure resources (natural gas, water, electricity) 
would adequately support construction activities. Construction 
activities would result in temporary increases in air quality impacts, 
but resulting criteria pollutant concentrations would be below ambient 
air quality standards. Construction activities would not impact water, 
visual resources, geology and soils, or cultural and paleontological 
resources. Minor indirect effects on potential Mexican spotted owl 
habitat could result from the removal of a small amount of habitat 
area, increased site activities, and night-time lighting near the 
remaining Mexican spotted owl habitat areas. The socioeconomic impacts 
associated with construction would not cause any major changes to 
employment, housing, or public finance in the region of influence. 
Waste generated during construction would be adequately managed by the 
existing LANL management and disposal capabilities.
    Alternative 2 (TA-6 Greenfield Alternative): The construction of 
new SNM-capable Hazard Category 2 and 3 buildings, the construction of 
an administrative offices and support functions facility, SNM vaults 
and other utility and security structures, and a parking lot at TA-6 
would affect 26.75 acres (10.8 hectares) of undisturbed

[[Page 6970]]

land, and would change the area's current land use designation to 
nuclear material research and development, similar to that of TA-55. 
Infrastructure resources (natural gas, water, electricity) would need 
to be extended or expanded to TA-6 to support construction activities. 
Construction activities would result in temporary increases in air 
quality impacts, but resulting criteria pollutant concentrations would 
be below ambient air quality standards. It would alter the existing 
visual character of the central portion of TA-6 from that of a largely 
natural woodland to an industrial site. Once completed, the new CMRR 
facility would result in a change in the visual resource contrast 
rating of TA-6 from Class III (undeveloped land where management 
activities do not dominate the view) to Class IV (developed land where 
management activities dominate the view). Construction activities would 
not impact water, biotic resources (including threatened and endangered 
species), geology and soils, or cultural and paleontological resources. 
The socioeconomic impacts associated with construction would not cause 
any major changes to employment, housing, or public finance in the 
region of influence. Waste generated during construction would be 
adequately managed by the existing LANL capabilities for handling 
waste. In addition, a radioactive liquid waste pipeline might also be 
constructed across Two Mile Canyon to tie in with an existing pipeline 
to the Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility (RLWTF) in TA-50.
    Alternative 3 (Hybrid Alternative at TA-55): The construction of 
new Hazard Category 2 and 3 buildings, the construction of SNM vaults 
and utility and security structures, and the construction of a parking 
lot at TA-55 would affect 22.75 acres (9.2 hectares) of mostly 
disturbed land, but would not change the area's current land use 
designation. The existing infrastructure would adequately support 
construction activities. Construction activities would result in 
temporary increases in air quality impacts, but resulting criteria 
pollutant concentrations would be below ambient air quality standards. 
Construction activities would not impact water, visual resources, 
geology and soils, or cultural and paleontological resources. Minor 
indirect effects on Mexican spotted owl habitat could result from the 
removal of a small amount of habitat area, increased site activities, 
and night-time lighting near the remaining Mexican spotted owl habitat 
areas. The socioeconomic impacts associated with construction would not 
cause any major changes to employment, housing, or public finance in 
the region of influence. Waste generated during construction would be 
adequately managed by the existing LANL capabilities for handling 
waste.
    Alternative 4 (Hybrid Alternative at TA-6): The construction of new 
Hazard Category 2 and 3 buildings, the construction of SNM vaults and 
utility and security structures, and the construction of a parking lot 
at TA-6 would affect 22.75 acres (9.2 hectares) of undisturbed land, 
and would change the area's current land use designation to nuclear 
material research and development, similar to that of TA-55. 
Infrastructure resources (natural gas, water, electricity) would need 
to be extended or expanded at TA-6 to support construction activities. 
Construction activities would result in temporary increases in air 
quality impacts, but would be below ambient air quality standards. The 
existing visual character of the central portion of TA-6 would be 
altered from that of a largely natural woodland to that of an 
industrial site. Once completed, the new CMRR facility would result in 
a change in the visual resource contrast rating of TA-6 from Class III 
to Class IV. Construction activities would not impact water, visual 
resources, biotic resources (including threatened and endangered 
species), geology and soils, or cultural and paleontological resources. 
The socioeconomic impacts associated with construction would not cause 
any major changes to employment, housing, or public finance in the 
socioeconomic region of influence. Waste generated during construction 
would be adequately managed by the existing LANL capabilities for 
handling waste. In addition, a radioactive liquid waste pipeline may 
also be constructed across Two Mile Canyon to tie in with an existing 
pipeline to the RLWTF at TA-50.

Impacts During the Transition From the CMR Building to the New CMRR 
Facility Under the Action Alternatives

    During a 4-year transition period, CMR operations at the existing 
CMR building would be moved to the new CMRR facility. During this time, 
both CMR facilities would be operating, although at reduced levels. At 
the existing CMR building, where restrictions would remain in effect, 
operations would decrease as CMR operations move to the new CMRR 
facility. At the new CMRR facility, levels of CMR operations would 
increase as the facility becomes fully operational. In addition, the 
transport of routine onsite shipment of AC and MC samples would 
continue to take place while both facilities are operating. With both 
facilities operating at reduced levels at the same time, the combined 
demand for electricity, and manpower to support transition activities 
during this period might be higher than would be required by the 
separate facilities. Nevertheless, the combined total impacts during 
this transition phase from both these facilities would be expected to 
be less than the impacts attributed to the expanded operations 
alternative and the level of CMR operations analyzed in the LANL SWEIS.
    Also during the transition phase, the risk of accidents would be 
changing at both the existing CMR building and the new CMRR facility. 
At the existing CMR building, the radiological material at risk and 
associated operations and storage would decline as material and 
equipment are transferred to the new CMRR facility. This material 
movement would have the positive effect of reducing the risk of 
accidents at the CMR building. Conversely, at the new CMRR facility, as 
the amount of radioactive material at risk and associated operations 
increases to full operations, the risk of accidents would also 
increase. However, the improvements in design and technology at the new 
CMRR facility would also have a positive effect of reducing overall 
accident risks when compared to the accident risks at the existing CMR 
building. The expected net effect of both of these facilities operating 
at the same time during the transition period would be for the risk of 
accidents to be lower than the accident risks at either the existing 
CMR building or the fully operational new CMRR facility.

Action Alternatives--Operations Impacts

    Relocating CMR operations to a new CMRR facility located at either 
TA-55 or TA-6 within LANL would require similar facilities, 
infrastructure support procedures, resources, and numbers of workers 
during operations. For most environmental areas of concern, operational 
differences would be minor. There would not be any perceivable 
differences in impact between the action alternatives for land use and 
visual resources, air and water quality, biotic resources (including 
threatened and endangered species), geology and soils, cultural and 
paleontological resources, power usage, and socioeconomics. 
Additionally, the new CMRR facility would use existing waste management

[[Page 6971]]

facilities to treat, store, and dispose of waste materials generated by 
CMR operations. All impacts would be within regulated limits and would 
comply with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Any 
transuranic (TRU) waste generated by CMRR facility operations would be 
treated and packaged in accordance with the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 
(WIPP) waste acceptance criteria and transported to WIPP or a similar 
type facility for disposition by DOE.
    Routine operations for each of the action alternatives would 
increase the amount of radiological releases as compared to current 
restricted CMR building operations. Current operations at the CMR 
building do not support the levels of activity described for the 
expanded operations alternative in the LANL SWEIS. There would be small 
differences in potential radiological impacts to the public, depending 
on the location of the new CMRR facility. However, radiation exposure 
to the public would be small and well below regulatory limits and 
limits imposed by DOE Orders. The maximally exposed offsite individual 
would receive a dose of less than or equal to 0.35 millirem per year, 
which translates to 2.1x10-7 latent cancer fatalities per 
year from routine operational activities at the new CMRR facility. 
Statistically, this translates into a risk of one chance in 5 million 
of a fatal cancer for the maximally exposed offsite individual due to 
these operations. The total dose to the population within 50 miles (80 
kilometers) would be a maximum of 2.0 person-rem per year, which 
translates to 0.0012 latent cancer fatalities per year in the entire 
population from routine operations at the new CMRR facility. 
Statistically, this would equate to a chance of one additional fatal 
cancer among the exposed population every 1,000 years.
    Using DOE-approved computer models and analysis techniques, 
estimates were made of worker and public health and safety risks that 
could result from potential accidents for each alternative. For all 
CMRR facility alternatives, the results indicate that statistically 
there would be no chance of a latent cancer fatality for a worker or 
member of the public. The CMRR facility accident with the highest risk 
is a facility-wide spill of radioactive material caused by a severe 
earthquake that exceeds the design capability of the CMRR facility 
under Alternative 1. The risk for the entire population for this 
accident was estimated to be 0.0005 latent cancer fatalities per year.
    This value is statistically equivalent to stating that there would 
be no chance of a latent cancer fatality for an average individual in 
the population during the lifetime of the facility. Continued operation 
of the CMR building under the no action alternative would carry a 
higher risk because of the building's location and greater 
vulnerability to earthquakes. The risk for the entire population 
associated with an earthquake at the CMR building would be 0.0024 
latent cancer fatalities per year, which is also statistically 
equivalent to no chance of a latent cancer fatality for an average 
individual during the lifetime of the facility.
    As previously noted, overall CMR operational characteristics at 
LANL would not change regardless of the ultimate location of the 
replacement facility and the action alternative implemented. Sampling 
methods and mission operations in support of AC and MC would not change 
and, therefore, would not result in any additional environmental or 
health and safety impacts to LANL. Each of the action alternatives 
would generally have the same amount of operational impacts. All of the 
action alternatives would produce equivalent amounts of emissions and 
radioactive releases into the environment, infrastructure requirements 
would be the same, and each action alternative would generate the same 
amount of radioactive and non-radioactive waste, regardless of the 
ultimate location of the new CMRR facility at LANL. Other impacts that 
would be common to each of the action alternatives include 
transportation impacts and CMR building and CMRR facility disposition 
impacts. Transportation impacts could result from: (1) The one-time 
movement of SNM, equipment, and other materials during the transition 
from the existing CMR building to the new CMRR facility; and (2) the 
routine onsite shipment of AC and MC samples between the plutonium 
facility at TA-55 and the new CMRR facility. Impacts from the 
disposition of the existing CMR building and the CMRR facility would 
result from the decontamination and demolition of the buildings and the 
transport and disposal of radiological and non-radiological waste 
materials. All action alternatives would require the relocation and 
one-time transport of SNM equipment and materials. Transport of SNM, 
equipment, and other materials currently located at the CMR building to 
the new CMRR facility at TA-55 or TA-6 would occur over a period of two 
to four years. The public would not be expected to receive any 
measurable exposure from the one-time movement of radiological 
materials associated with this action. Impacts of potential handling 
and transport accidents during the one-time movement of SNM, equipment, 
and other materials during the transition from the existing CMR 
building to the new CMRR facility would be bounded by other facility 
accidents for each alternative. For all alternatives, the environmental 
impacts and potential risks of transportation would be small.
    Under each action alternative, routine onsite shipments of AC and 
MC samples consisting of small quantities of radioactive materials and 
SNM samples would be shipped from the plutonium facility at TA-55 to 
the new CMRR facility at either TA-55 or TA-6. The public would not be 
expected to receive any additional measurable exposure from the normal 
movement of small quantities of radioactive materials and SNM samples 
between these facilities. The potential risk to a maximally exposed 
individual (MEI) member of the public from a transportation accident 
involving routine onsite shipments of AC and MC samples between the 
plutonium facility and CMRR facility was estimated to be very small 
(3.7x10-10), or approximately 1 chance in 3 billion. For all action 
alternatives, the overall environmental impacts and potential risks of 
transporting AC and MC samples would be small.

Action Alternatives--CMR Building and CMRR Facility Disposition Impacts

    All action alternatives would require some level of decontamination 
and demolition of the existing CMR building. Operations experience at 
the CMR building indicates some surface contamination has resulted from 
the conduct of various activities over the last 50 years. Impacts 
associated with decontamination and demolition of the CMR building are 
expected to be limited to the creation of waste within LANL site waste 
management capabilities. This would not be a discriminating factor 
among the alternatives.
    Decontamination, and demolition of the new CMRR facility would also 
be considered at the end of its designed lifetime operation of at least 
50 years. Impacts from the disposition of the CMRR facility would be 
expected to be similar to those for the existing CMR building.
    No Action Alternative: Under the no action alternative there would 
be no new construction and minimal necessary structural and systems 
upgrades and repairs. Accordingly, there would be no potential 
environmental impacts resulting from new construction for this 
alternative. Operational impacts of continuing CMR

[[Page 6972]]

operations at the CMR building would be less than those identified 
under the expanded operations alterative analyzed in the 1999 LANL 
SWEIS due to the operating constraints imposed on radiological 
operations at the CMR building.

Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement

    NNSA distributed approximately 400 copies of the final EIS 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. NNSA 
received one comment letter from the Pueblo of San Ildefonso regarding 
NNSA's responses to Pueblo concerns related to the draft CMRR EIS that 
focused primarily on the spread of contamination present in the canyons 
around LANL onto land owned by the Pueblo. This issue is beyond the 
scope of the CMRR EIS but will be addressed by NNSA through other means 
already established for LANL, such as the environmental restoration 
project, rather than through the NEPA compliance process.

Decision Factors

    NNSA's decisions are based on its mission responsibilities and the 
ability to continue to perform mission-critical AC and MC operations at 
LANL in an environmentally sound, timely and fiscally prudent manner. 
Other key factors in the decision-making process include programmatic 
impacts and overall program risk, and construction and operational 
costs.
    LANL's CMR operations support a wide range of scientific and 
technological capabilities that support, in turn, NNSA's national 
security mission assignments. Most of the LANL mission support 
functions require AC and MC, and actinide research and development 
support capabilities and capacities that currently exist within the CMR 
building. NNSA will continue to need CMR capabilities now and into the 
foreseeable future, much as these capabilities have been needed at LANL 
over the past 60 years. Programmatic risks are high if LANL CMR 
operations continue at the curtailed operational level now appropriate 
at the aging CMR building. CMR operations at LANL need to continue 
seamlessly in an uninterrupted fashion, and the level of overall CMR 
operations needs to be flexible enough to accommodate the work load 
variations inherent in NNSA's mission support assignments and the 
general increase in the level of operations currently seen as necessary 
to support future national security requirements.
    The CMR building was initially designed and constructed to comply 
with the Uniform Buildings Codes in effect at the time. The CMR 
building's wing 4 location over a seismic trace would require very 
extensive and costly structural changes that would be of marginal 
operational return. Construction costs are estimated to be less for 
building and operating a new CMRR facility over the long term than the 
cost estimated for making changes to the aging CMR building so that the 
building could be operated as a nuclear facility at the level of 
operations required by the expanded operations alternative selected for 
LANL in the 1999 LANL SWEIS ROD over the next 50 years. Life cycle 
costs of operating a new CMRR facility at TA-55 are less than the costs 
would be of operating a totally upgraded CMR building over the next 50 
years. Reduced general occupation costs of maintaining the new CMRR 
facility (such as heating and cooling the building to maintain 
comfortable personnel working conditions) given the reduction in 
occupied building square footage over that of the existing CMR 
building, and reduced security costs (for maintaining Perimeter 
Intrusion Detection Alarm Systems (PIDAS) and guard personnel) due to 
the co-location of the CMRR facility within the existing security 
perimeter of the plutonium facility thereby eliminating the need for 
maintaining a separate duplicative security system at the CMR building 
both would significantly reduce general operating costs for the new 
facility.

Mitigation Measures

    Based on the analyses of impacts provided in the CMRR EIS, no 
mitigation measures were identified as being necessary since all 
potential environmental impacts would be substantially below acceptable 
levels of promulgated standards. Activities associated with the 
proposed construction of the new CMRR facility would follow standard 
procedures for minimizing construction impacts, as would demolition 
activities.

Decisions

    NNSA has decided to implement the preferred alternative, 
alternative 1, which is the construction and operation of a new CMRR 
facility within TA-55 at LANL. The new CMRR facility would include two 
buildings (one building for administrative and support functions, and 
one building for Hazard Category 2 SNM laboratory operations), both of 
which would be constructed at above ground locations (construction 
option 3). The existing CMR building would be decontaminated, 
decommissioned and demolished in its entirety (disposition option 3). 
However, the actual implementation of these decisions is dependent on 
DOE funding levels and allocations of the DOE budget across competing 
priorities.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of February, 2004.
Linton Brooks,
Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-3096 Filed 2-11-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P