[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64344-64348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26881]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

National Nuclear Security Administration


Amended Record of Decision for the Nuclear Facility Portion of 
the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project at 
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM

AGENCY: National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Amended Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the 
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this Amended Record of 
Decision (AROD) for the Nuclear Facility portion of the Chemistry and 
Metallurgy Research Building Replacement (CMRR) Project at the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in Los Alamos, New Mexico. After 
completing an EIS, NNSA issued a ROD for the CMRR Project on February 
3, 2004, deciding to construct a two-building, partially above-ground, 
CMRR Facility in Technical Area-55 (TA-55) at LANL. This new facility 
would replace the aging 60-year-old Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 
(CMR) Building at LANL, and would ensure the ability to continue to 
perform analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations 
using plutonium and other actinides in a safe, secure manner in support 
of NNSA mission activities. As the CMRR Project planning and design 
process has progressed over the past 8 years, the first building of the 
two-building CMRR Facility (the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office 
Building, also known as the RLUOB) has been constructed. During this 
same time period, primarily as a result of efforts to better understand 
the seismic environment at the selected construction site in TA-55, 
several design considerations and ancillary support requirements were 
identified for the CMRR Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) that had not been 
anticipated in 2003. These design considerations and additional 
ancillary support requirements were not analyzed in the 2003 CMRR EIS. 
To address this new information, NNSA recently completed a supplemental 
environmental impact statement, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Nuclear Facility Portion of the Chemistry and 
Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico (the CMRR-NF SEIS). The CMRR-NF SEIS 
analyzes the potential environmental impacts of proposed construction 
changes to the CMRR-NF to address site seismic and safety 
considerations, as well as newly identified ancillary construction 
support requirements, such as additional equipment storage areas, soil 
storage areas, additional transportation needs, and worker parking 
areas under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative and compares these impacts 
to those identified for the construction project selected in the 2004 
ROD (No Action Alternative) and for continued operation of the existing 
CMR facility. NNSA has considered this analysis as well as comments 
submitted by the public on the Draft and Final CMRR-NF SEIS and has 
decided to select the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative for constructing and 
operating the CMRR-NF portion of the CMRR Project. NNSA will select the 
appropriate Excavation Option (Shallow or Deep) for implementing the 
construction of this building after initiating final design activities, 
when additional geotechnical and structural design calculations and 
more detailed engineering analysis will be performed to support 
completing the facility design.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about the 
CMRR-NF SEIS or this CMRR-NF AROD, or to receive copies of the CMRR-NF 
SEIS, contact: Mr. George J. Rael, Assistant Manager Environmental 
Operations, NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 
National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Site Office, 3747 
West Jemez Road, Los Alamos, NM 87544. Mr. Rael may be contacted by 
telephone at 505-606-0397, or via e-mail at: [email protected]. The 
CMRR-NF SEIS is posted at http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/nepa and also at 
http://www.energy.gov/nepa/downloads/eis-0350-s1-final-supplemental-environmental-impact-statement. For information on the DOE NEPA 
process, contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 
Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4600, or 
leave a message at (800) 472-2756. Additional information regarding DOE 
NEPA activities and access to many DOE NEPA documents are available on 
the Internet through the DOE NEPA Web site at: http://www.energy.gov/nepa.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    LANL is a multidisciplinary, multipurpose research institution in 
north-central New Mexico, about 60 miles (97 kilometers) north-
northeast of Albuquerque, and about 25 miles (40 kilometers) northwest 
of Santa Fe. Since the early 1950s, analytical chemistry (AC) and 
materials characterization (MC) work has been performed in the CMR 
Building at LANL. The CMR Building provides essential support for 
various national security missions, including nuclear nonproliferation 
programs; the manufacturing, development, and surveillance of pits (the 
fissile core of a nuclear warhead); life extension programs; 
dismantlement efforts; waste management; material recycle and recovery; 
and research. The CMR Building is almost 60 years old and near the end 
of its useful life. Many of its utility systems and structural 
components are aged, outmoded, and deteriorated. In the 1990s, 
geological studies identified a seismic fault trace located beneath two 
of the wings of the CMR Building, which raised concerns about the 
structural integrity of the facility. Over the long term, NNSA cannot 
continue to operate the mission-critical AC and MC capabilities in the 
existing CMR Building at an acceptable

[[Page 64345]]

level of risk to worker safety and health. NNSA has already taken steps 
to minimize the risks associated with continued operations at the CMR 
Building.
    To ensure that NNSA can fulfill its national security mission for 
the next 50 years in a safe, secure, and environmentally sound manner, 
NNSA proposed in 2002 to construct a CMR replacement facility, and this 
became the subject of the 2003 Environmental Impact Statement for the 
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project, Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico (DOE/EIS-0350, CMRR 
EIS) and the subsequent 2004 ROD (69 FR 6967). Since the issuance of 
the 2004 ROD, new information on the seismic environment at Los Alamos, 
as well as revisions to safety system requirements, have become 
available, indicating that changes to the design of the CMRR-NF are 
appropriate. The need for additional construction support activities 
and ancillary construction work spaces has also been identified. These 
changes resulted in NNSA's decision to prepare a supplement to the 2003 
CMRR EIS, the CMRR-NF SEIS, pursuant to the regulations of the Council 
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 
1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). 
Decisions in this AROD are based in part on information and analyses 
contained in the CMRR-NF SEIS, DOE/EIS-0350-S1.

NEPA Process for the CMRR-NF SEIS

    NNSA started the process for preparing the CMRR-NF SEIS by 
publishing in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent to prepare the 
CMRR-NF SEIS, inviting the public to participate in a scoping process 
to help shape NNSA's supplemental analysis (75 FR 60745, October 1, 
2010). The public scoping period extended from October 1 through 
November 16, 2010. In preparing the Draft CMRR-NF SEIS, NNSA considered 
all scoping comments received during the scoping period. The 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NNSA simultaneously published 
Notices of Availability for the Draft CMRR-NF SEIS in the Federal 
Register on April 29, 2011 (76 FR 24021 and 76 FR 24018, respectively). 
These notices invited public comment on the Draft CMRR-NF SEIS from 
April 29 through June 13, 2011. NNSA later published another notice in 
the Federal Register on May 16, 2011, extending the public comment 
period through June 28, 2011 (76 FR 28222), for a total comment period 
of 60 days. Four public hearings on the Draft CMRR-NF SEIS were held in 
Los Alamos, Espa[ntilde]ola, Santa Fe, and Albuquerque, New Mexico, 
from May 23 through May 26, 2011. NNSA issued the Final CMRR-NF SEIS on 
August 26, 2011, and the EPA published a Notice of Availability for the 
Final CMRR-NF SEIS on September 2, 2011 (76 FR 54768).

Alternatives Considered

    In the CMRR-NF SEIS, NNSA analyzed the potential environmental 
impacts associated with three alternatives for the CMRR-NF: (1) The No 
Action Alternative, (2) the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, and (3) the 
Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative.
    The No Action Alternative (2004 CMRR-NF) analyzed in the CMRR-NF 
SEIS consists of continuing to implement earlier NNSA decisions issued 
in the 2004 ROD based on the 2003 CMRR EIS and modified by subsequent 
NEPA decisions related to site infrastructure. NNSA determined that the 
building, as conceived in 2003, would not sufficiently meet subsequent 
safety and seismic requirements to allow the full suite of NNSA 
mission-assigned work to be conducted.
    Two action alternatives were analyzed in the CMRR-NF SEIS: the 
Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, and the Continued Use of CMR Building 
Alternative. The Modified CMRR-NF Alternative consists of constructing 
and operating a new CMRR-NF at TA-55 adjacent to RLUOB, with certain 
design and construction modifications and additional support activities 
that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear-
safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two 
construction options were considered under this alternative: the Deep 
Excavation Option and the Shallow Excavation Option. All necessary AC 
and MC activities could be performed within the modified CMRR-NF to 
support the full suite of NNSA mission work. The Continued Use of CMR 
Building Alternative would consist of continuing to perform a 
restricted suite of operations in the existing CMR Building with normal 
maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain 
programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Administrative and 
radiological laboratory operations would be conducted in RLUOB at TA-
55, and no construction activities would be associated with this 
alternative.

Preferred Alternative

    As discussed in Volume I, Chapter 2, Section 2.9 of the CMRR-NF 
SEIS, NNSA identified the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative as its preferred 
alternative in both the Draft and the Final versions of the document. 
However, NNSA did not identify a preferred construction option in the 
CMRR-NF SEIS.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    Considering the long-term need to maintain its capability to 
conduct AC and MC operations at LANL, NNSA believes that the Modified 
CMRR-NF Alternative is the environmentally preferable alternative for 
meeting its full suite of mission work requirements. Replacing the 
aging CMR Building with a new facility that incorporates modern safety, 
security, and efficiency standards would improve NNSA's ability to 
protect human health and the environment both during normal operations 
and in the event of an accident or natural phenomena event, such as a 
wildfire or earthquake.

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

    NNSA analyzed the potential impacts of each alternative on: Land 
use and visual resources; site infrastructure; air quality (including 
greenhouse gases); noise; geology and soils; surface and groundwater 
quality; ecological resources; cultural and paleontological resources; 
socioeconomics; environmental justice; human health; waste management 
and pollution prevention; transportation; traffic; and cumulative 
impacts. NNSA also evaluated the potential impacts of each alternative 
associated with 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. In addition, NNSA evaluated impacts of potential 
accidents, including those tied to seismic risk, on workers and 
surrounding populations. These analyses and results are described in 
Volume I, Chapter 4 of the CMRR-NF SEIS. The CMRR-NF SEIS includes a 
classified appendix that analyzes the potential environmental impacts 
of intentional destructive acts (credible terrorist scenarios) that 
might occur at the CMRR-NF.

Comments on the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

    Following publication of the Final CMRR-NF SEIS in August 2011, and 
prior to issuing this AROD, NNSA received 7 comment documents. The 
appendix to this AROD contains a summary of these comments and provides 
NNSA's responses for those

[[Page 64346]]

cases where in NNSA's view the comment documents introduce new 
concerns/issues that were not addressed in the Final SEIS. NNSA has 
concluded that none of the comments received necessitate further NEPA 
analysis.

 Decisions

    NNSA's decisions are based on its mission responsibilities and its 
need to sustain AC and MC work at LANL in a manner that allows it to 
fulfill these responsibilities in a safe and environmentally 
conscientious manner. The CMRR-NF would provide vitally essential 
technical support capabilities to NNSA's national security missions, 
which include maintaining the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and 
nonproliferation programs. NNSA has decided to select the Modified 
CMRR-NF Alternative to continue AC and MC operations at LANL as 
described in Volume I, Chapter 2, Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of the CMRR-NF 
SEIS. NNSA will also initiate the facility disposition of the existing 
CMR Building and the CMRR-NF as operations cease in those structures. 
The benefits of implementing the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative include 
reliable, long-term, consolidated plutonium research and storage 
capabilities for the nuclear security enterprise with modern 
technologies and facilities; improved health and safety for workers and 
the public; improved operational efficiency; and reductions in the 
long-term cost of operating and maintaining the facility.

Additional Background and Summary of the NEPA Comparison of Excavation 
Options

    When the probabilistic seismic hazards analysis was prepared in 
2007 (LA-UR-07-3965), the CMRR Project team proposed and investigated 
changing the design for the CMRR-NF that had been selected in the 2004 
ROD to increase the thickness in certain floors, the height between 
floors to provide access, and the thickness of the basemat to improve 
performance in a seismic event. With these changes, the overall 
building, measured from the bottom of the basemat to the top of the 
roof, would have been higher. The design was further revised to 
maintain the above-ground height of the building by providing a deeper 
building excavation. This design change resulted in the Deep Excavation 
Option. The Deep Excavation Option would entail excavating through the 
layer of poorly welded tuff at the construction site and filling the 
hole with low-slump concrete to the elevation of the bottom of the 
basemat, as discussed in Volume I, Chapter 2, Section 2.6.2 of the 
SEIS. The environmental impacts associated with these activities are 
discussed in Volume I, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.
    Scoping comments for the CMRR-NF SEIS requested that NNSA look for 
and analyze alternative design/construction options for the CMRR-NF, 
including those which might reduce cost and environmental impact by 
avoiding the need for a deep excavation. Consistent with the rationale 
in this request, NNSA performed a review of the requirements for the 
design of the CMRR-NF, which identified an opportunity to avoid the 
activities and costs associated with the additional excavation and 
concrete fill required for the Deep Excavation Option by raising the 
bottom of the basemat to near the original design elevation. Following 
this review, NNSA began analyzing this additional option for inclusion 
in the Draft SEIS. Under this design/construction option for the CMRR-
NF, which came to be known as the Shallow Excavation Option, the 
overall building height (bottom of basemat to top of roof) would remain 
the same, but the top of the roof would be higher aboveground than it 
was in the conceptual and preliminary design. Geotechnical reviews 
performed for this Shallow Excavation Option concluded that the 
substrate is sufficiently strong to withstand the weight of the 
proposed CMRR-NF, such that intolerable amounts of seismically- and 
non-seismically-induced settlement and lateral shifting of the 
foundation would not occur. The allowable bearing pressure of the soil 
is much greater than the pressure caused by the buildings. Both the 
Deep and the Shallow Excavation options require the same sets of safety 
controls and the SEIS analysis indicates that they are expected to 
result in similar offsite environmental consequences. However, the 
Shallow Excavation Option reduces risk and provides some reductions in 
construction impacts and cost without affecting other building design 
requirements. Risk reduction would be realized by a decrease in: 
excavating, hauling, and storing soil (approximately 9,000 fewer truck 
trips depending on hauling capacity and 309,000 fewer cubic yards of 
soil excavated); scope of geotechnical monitoring; extent of slope 
stabilization; and safety precautions for working in a deep hole. 
Reductions in construction impacts would include a reduced project 
footprint for excavated spoils storage (20 fewer acres); fewer truck 
trips on- and off-site from LANL; fewer materials procured (a savings 
of 250,000 cubic yards of concrete); and reduced water use (8 million 
fewer gallons over the course of construction).
    NNSA will begin the implementation of its decision to select the 
Modified CMRR-NF Alternative for constructing and operating the CMRR-NF 
portion of the CMRR Facility Project by conducting additional detailed 
design and analysis activities. Continuing forward into final design is 
expected to result in additional refinement of the information 
available to NNSA for making its selection of the construction option 
to be implemented. NNSA will select the appropriate Excavation Option 
for implementing the construction of this building after initiating 
final design activities when additional geotechnical and structural 
design calculations and more-detailed design engineering analysis will 
be conducted. In making its selection, NNSA will consider the data it 
obtains from these studies and analysis, the moderate distinctions in 
environmental impacts between the two excavation options, and other 
relevant factors such as additional evaluation of security features and 
more-detailed cost estimates.

Mitigation Measures

    All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have 
been and will continue to be adopted and employed in the design, 
construction, and operation of the CMRR-NF. CMRR-NF construction 
activities will follow standard practices required by federal and state 
licensing and permitting requirements for minimizing construction 
impacts on air and surface-water quality, noise, operational and public 
health and safety, and accident prevention. As described in Volume I, 
Chapter 5 of the CMRR-NF SEIS, NNSA and LANL operate pursuant to a 
number of environmental laws and regulations, as well as several other 
controls, including DOE Orders, policies and contractual requirements. 
Many of these mandate actions that would mitigate potential adverse 
environmental impacts related to the construction and subsequent 
operation of the CMRR-NF. Based on consideration of these mandated 
mitigation actions, and the analyses of the environmental consequences 
provided in the CMRR-NF SEIS for this action, no additional mitigation 
measures would be necessary for many resource areas because the 
potential environmental impacts are expected to be well below 
acceptable levels set in promulgated standards.
    A summary of all prior mitigation commitments for LANL that are 
either underway or to be initiated are included in the over-arching 
LANL SWEIS Mitigation Action Plan (SWEIS MAP).

[[Page 64347]]

Prior SWEIS MAP commitments include such actions as continued forest 
management efforts, trail management efforts, and implementation of a 
variety of site sampling and monitoring measures, as well as measures 
to reduce potable water use and implement resource conservation 
initiatives. A Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) for the CMRR-NF SEIS ROD 
will be issued by NNSA and made available at http://www.doeal.gov/laso/NEPADocuments.aspx. This MAP will include specific requirements for: 
potable water usage reduction measures; traffic flow improvements; and 
measures to meet electric power peak capacity demands. Starting in 
2012, these new mitigation measures specific to the CMRR-NF project 
will be incorporated into the overall LANL SWEIS MAP. Reporting will be 
consolidated into subsequent MAP Annual Reports issued by NNSA and made 
publicly available at: http://www.lanl.gov/environment/nepa/sweis.shtml.
    In addition, NNSA will continue its on-going efforts to support the 
local Pueblos and other tribal entities in matters of human health, and 
will participate in various intergovernmental efforts to protect 
indigenous practices and locations of concern. NNSA will continue to 
conduct government-to-government consultations with the Pueblos and 
other tribal entities to incorporate these matters into the SWEIS MAP, 
as deemed appropriate.

    Issued at Washington, DC, this 12th day of October, 2011.
Thomas P. D'Agostino,
Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration.

Appendix to the CMRR-NF Amended ROD

    Following publication of the Final Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement for the Nuclear Facility Portion of the Chemistry and 
Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, Los Alamos New Mexico, DOE/EIS-0350-S1 (Final CMRR-NF SEIS) 
in August 2011, and prior to issuing of this Amended Record of Decision 
(AROD), the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) received 
seven comment documents related to the Final CMRR-NF SEIS. Having 
reviewed and fully considered the comments received in the comment 
documents, NNSA has determined that these comments do not provide 
information that affects the analysis in the Final CMRR-NF SEIS.
    NNSA has further determined that many of the issues in these 
comment documents are either similar, or in some cases identical to, 
comments that were submitted on the Draft CMRR-NF SEIS which were 
addressed by NNSA in the Final CMRR-NF SEIS comment response document 
(Volume II of the FSEIS). These include comments related to NNSA's 
implementation of the NEPA process; the requirements for a supplemental 
environmental impact statement; the purpose and need for action; the 
range of alternatives evaluated; radioactive contaminants in the 
environment; consideration of geologic and seismic risks at LANL in 
facility design; hazards from earthquakes and wildfires; electrical and 
water usage; management of radioactive materials; waste management; 
concerns related to environmental cleanup; decontamination, 
decommissioning, and demolition of the CMRR-NF; pit production and 
stockpile stewardship; arms reduction and nonproliferation treaty 
compliance; and facility costs and potential other uses of funds. NNSA 
has determined that is appropriate to respond further to the following 
comments extracted from these seven documents and summarized below:
    Comment 1: The CMRR-NF SEIS Comment Response Document (CRD) (Volume 
2) did not include all comments received.
    Response: NNSA endeavored to include in the CRD all comments that 
it received in response to the Draft SEIS but inadvertently overlooked 
one letter which was a variant of Campaign Y. In the CRD, NNSA 
categorized letters with similar language as ``campaigns'' for the 
purpose of providing a consolidated response. The omitted letter 
mirrored the Campaign Y letter, and also included comments on four 
additional issues: (1) Alternative designation in the SEIS, (2) 
electricity use at LANL during construction of the CMRR-NF, (3) 
transuranic waste disposal, and (4) the ability of the preferred site 
to support the weight of the proposed CMRR-NF. After reviewing these 
additional comments, NNSA has concluded that they were addressed in 
NNSA's responses to other comments received during the public comment 
period (see, e.g., responses to comments 108-3, 153-5, 204-37, and 57-
1, respectively). Therefore, NNSA does not believe that this 
inadvertent oversight affects the analysis in the Final SEIS or this 
decision document. No other commentors contacted NNSA to communicate 
that their comments were not included in the CRD.
    Comment 2: The Final CMRR-NF SEIS does not state which Construction 
Option NNSA prefers for the Modified CMRR-N F Alternative (Shallow 
Excavation Option or Deep Excavation Option).
    Response: NNSA prepared the final CMRR-NF SEIS document in 
accordance with CEQ and DOE NEPA regulations which require the 
identification of a preferred alternative in a Final EIS document, by 
identifying the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative as its preferred 
Alternative. (See Volume I, Chapter 2, Section 2.9.) NNSA analyzed and 
presented within the CMRR-NF SEIS the full range of potential direct, 
indirect, and cumulative impacts for each of the two options (Shallow 
Excavation and Deep Excavation) that NNSA identified for construction 
of the preferred alternative.
    Both the Deep and the Shallow Excavation options contemplate 
construction of essentially the same building structure to provide the 
same functional capabilities. Thus both options require the same sets 
of safety controls and key equipment. Further, as the SEIS analysis 
indicates, once construction is complete and operations commence, both 
options are expected to result in similar offsite environmental 
consequences. The additional geotechnical and structural design 
calculations and more detailed engineering analysis NNSA will conduct 
pursuant to the decision announced in this AROD, prior to selecting a 
construction option for implementation, are not expected to identify 
any additional environmental impacts associated with either excavation 
option beyond those analyzed and presented in the final SEIS.
    Comment 3: The reference, Interim Report, Update of the 
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Development of CMRR Design 
Ground Motions Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, was not 
included in the April 2011 draft document, and therefore the public did 
not have an opportunity to review and comment on it.
    Response: As discussed in the Final CMRR-NF SEIS, the reference, a 
2009 update to the 2007 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), 
was not publicly available at the time the Draft CMRR-NF SEIS was 
prepared; however, it has subsequently been made available to the 
public upon request and has been incorporated into the Final CMRR-NF 
SEIS. Based on the 2009 study, the TA-55 horizontal and vertical peak 
ground acceleration values for a 2,500-year return period showed a 
reduction in acceleration values compared to the 2007 study. However, 
the more conservative acceleration values from the 2007 study are 
currently being used

[[Page 64348]]

for the seismic design of the CMRR-NF structure, and the public did 
have an opportunity to review and comment on those values. Regardless 
of whether the 2007 or 2009 study values are used, NNSA plans to 
construct the CMRR-NF to meet the requirements of a performance 
category 3 structure as discussed in the Final CMRR-NF SEIS.
    Comment 4: LANL should immediately install a network of weak motion 
seismographs to improve knowledge of kappa.
    Response: LANL has both weak and strong motion seismic networks 
that continue to be updated and improved. Numerous earthquakes have 
been recorded by the weak motion network and are part of the earthquake 
catalog referenced in the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). 
Inference of a value for kappa requires an earthquake recording that is 
on-scale and has significant bandwidth as documented in the 2007 PSHA. 
Because of this requirement, the number of records that can be used for 
estimating a value for kappa is limited. LANL has and will continue to 
improve and upgrade the seismic network. As additional seismic data are 
collected by the LANL weak and strong motion seismic arrays, the value 
of kappa will be further refined and its uncertainty reduced. However, 
further refinement of the value of kappa is not essential for the 
purposes of the environmental impact analysis.
[FR Doc. 2011-26881 Filed 10-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P