Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, Los Alamos National Laboratory

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, Los Alamos National

Laboratory

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Advance Notice of Intent to Prepare a Site-Wide Environmental

Impact Statement for Continued Operations of the Los Alamos National

Laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is providing

advance notice of its intent to prepare a Site-Wide Environmental

Impact Statement (SWEIS) for its Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL),

Los Alamos, New Mexico, a DOE multipurpose research and development

laboratory. The SWEIS will be prepared pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.], the

Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations [40 CFR Parts 1500-

1508] and the DOE NEPA regulations [10 CFR Part 1021]. The SWEIS will

analyze the potential environmental impacts of continuing to operate

LANL and reasonable alternative operating envelopes.

With this Advance Notice, DOE initiates a prescoping process to

identify possible issues and alternatives to be analyzed in the SWEIS.

As provided at 10 CFR 1021.311(b), this Advance Notice provides an

early opportunity to inform the public of the SWEIS and to solicit

early public comments. After this prescoping process, DOE will publish

a Notice of Intent (NOI) which will identify the proposed scope of the

SWEIS, including the proposed alternatives and issues developed through

this prescoping process. Although schedules have not yet been

developed, it is DOE's intent to start the full SWEIS process as soon

as possible and complete the process as quickly as possible. The public

is invited to comment on this Advance Notice and to attend public

information meetings and workshops addressing SWEIS issues.

DATES: Written comments on the scope of the SWEIS are invited from the

public. Prescoping comments should be postmarked by October 31, 1994.

The Department will again invite comments on the scope of the SWEIS

after the NOI is published.

The Department will hold public information meetings and workshops

in conjunction with prescoping. These will be held at various places in

northern New Mexico. The times, dates, and format of these meetings

will be announced in the local press no later than two weeks prior to

the meetings and publicized in other ways as appropriate.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the SWEIS or other matters

concerning the SWEIS, or requests to be put on a mailing list for

future information about the SWEIS, should be addressed to: M. Diana

Webb, Los Alamos Area Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 528 35th

Street, Los Alamos, NM 87544, Attn: LANL SWEIS, (505) 665-6353,

Facsimile (505) 665-4504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the DOE

NEPA process, please contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of

NEPA Oversight, EH-25, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (800) 472-2756 or (202) 586-4600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

About the SWEIS. The Department has a policy to prepare SWEISs for

large, multi-facility DOE sites [10 CFR 1021.330], such as LANL. The

purpose of a SWEIS is to provide DOE and its stakeholders with a

comprehensive look at the environmental impacts caused by its

operations and activities at a site. The NEPA process allows for

Federal, State, tribal, county, municipal and public participation in

the environmental review and resultant decisionmaking process. A SWEIS

was last prepared for LANL in 1979 [DOE/EIS-0018]. The planned SWEIS

would replace that document.

A SWEIS is a useful tool for DOE to manage its facilities and

operations. It provides the DOE decisionmakers, site management, and

the public with comprehensive information on the cumulative impact of

past, ongoing and planned activities at a site in order to plan for

quality stewardship of the resources entrusted to DOE's care. A SWEIS

can be used to establish an environmentally-sound operating envelope

for site activities and establish thresholds of significance to

identify future environmental impacts. The SWEIS is expected to support

later NEPA reviews by allowing DOE to focus on project-specific issues

and to narrow and simplify the scope of later reviews. This process is

called ``tiering'' [40 CFR 1508.28]. DOE believes that the SWEIS

analysis will generally provide adequate NEPA coverage for those

activities and projects covered by the SWEIS. However, a SWEIS may not

replace the need for future, project-specific NEPA reviews as future

proposals for LANL facilities are developed. In accordance with 10 CFR

1021.330(d), DOE will evaluate the SWEIS at least every five years

after its completion to determine whether it should be revised.

Site-wide Analysis. The SWEIS will address operations and planned

activities at LANL foreseen within the next 5 to 10 years. The SWEIS

will focus on operating practices and facility management; DOE does not

expect to be able to anticipate all future research and development

projects that LANL may be called upon to support over the next ten

years. The Department anticipates that the SWEIS will provide an

analysis of all activities at LANL and all DOE land management

activities related to operations at LANL. The SWEIS will also examine

DOE's ongoing obligations to the surrounding community under the Atomic

Energy Communities Act [42 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.], including proposals to

transfer certain tracts of DOE-administered land to Los Alamos County.

The Department intends to use the SWEIS to develop: mitigation measures

for operating and facilities management practices; a nuclear materials

storage and handling strategy; a waste management strategy; an

environmental restoration strategy; and a land transfer strategy for

LANL. The SWEIS will include an analysis of the impacts of operating

all major facilities at LANL. Specific research projects or facility

proposals that are not included within the SWEIS analysis would be

subject to project-specific NEPA reviews.

Los Alamos National Laboratory's mission. The Department

coordinates and administers the energy functions of the Federal

government. Among other things, it is responsible for the nuclear

weapons program, research and development of energy technologies, and

basic science research. The Laboratory is one of DOE's primary research

and development laboratories. It was established in 1943 to provide

research, design, and testing for nuclear weapons and nuclear materials

and remains one of the three laboratories in DOE's nuclear weapons

complex. Over the past 50 years, LANL's mission has expanded to include

research in energy, materials science, nuclear safeguards and security,

biomedical science, computational science, environmental protection and

cleanup, and other basic science research. In addition to work done in

support of DOE programs, LANL provides research and science services

for other Federal agencies, universities, foreign countries, and

private industry. The Laboratory is one of the largest multiprogram

research laboratories in the world, with an annual budget of about $1

billion and about 10,000 contractor and sub-contractor employees. The

Laboratory covers about 43 square miles of Federal land in north-

central New Mexico in Los Alamos and Santa Fe Counties.

The Secretary of Energy has initiated an independent review to

provide recommendations on the future missions of all DOE Laboratories.

The SWEIS will incorporate any recommendations accepted by DOE

regarding the future missions of LANL.

Related NEPA reviews. Currently, certain of LANL's mission elements

are being considered in several other broad-scale NEPA reviews. In

addition, about 20 proposed projects at LANL are in the process of

having either an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) prepared.

The Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programmatic EIS

(PEIS) [Notice of Intent, 55 FR 42633] will analyze the DOE plan to

formulate and implement an integrated Environmental Management program.

The Laboratory is one of the alternative sites proposed to store and

process transuranic radioactive waste and store, process, and provide

on-site disposal for low-level radioactive waste, possibly including

material generated at locations other than LANL.

The Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration PEIS [revised Notice of

Intent, 56 FR 39528] analyzes alternatives for the reconfiguration of

the weapons complex due to nuclear weapons stockpile reductions. The

Department currently is considering how the scope of this PEIS should

be revised further to reflect more recent budget and stockpile

reduction decisions. At this time, the Reconfiguration PEIS and its

related decisions are not expected to change the weapons mission at

LANL.

The Advanced Neutron Source EIS analyzes the siting, construction

and operation of a research nuclear reactor [Notice of Intent, 58 FR

31019]. The Laboratory is being considered as an alternative to the

preferred site at DOE's Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee.

The Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and INEL

Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs EIS includes a

programmatic analysis of transporting, processing, and storing spent

nuclear reactor fuel [Notice of Availability, Draft EIS, 59 FR 32688].

The Laboratory has generated spent fuel and continues to temporarily

store this material pending the outcome of programmatic decisions

following the spent fuel EIS.

The Department is preparing a site-wide EIS for all activities at

its Pantex Plant, near Amarillo, Texas [Notice of Intent, 59 FR 26635].

The primary mission of this facility is disassembly of nuclear weapons.

The Pantex site-wide EIS will also take a programmatic look at storing

disassembled nuclear weapons components. The Laboratory disassembles

and temporarily stores radioisotopic thermoelectric generators

(radioactive heat sources) that have been removed from retired weapons

and could be considered as an alternative site for other components.

The Department is preparing a PEIS for Storage and Disposition of

Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials [Notice of Intent, 59 FR 31985]. The

PEIS will analyze alternatives for the long-term storage and

disposition of surplus nuclear materials in order to minimize the risk

of proliferation of nuclear weapons capability in the world. Phase I of

the project will be to provide safe, controlled, inspectable interim

storage. As part of this phase, DOE is performing a vulnerability study

to determine the risks associated with current storage of nuclear

materials. Phase II will be long-term storage or disposition of surplus

material. Among other things, the PEIS will analyze a new, consolidated

long-term storage facility at five candidate sites (LANL is not a

candidate site), and continued use of interim storage facilities. The

Laboratory now stores some nuclear materials.

The Department is preparing a programmatic EA on its proposal to

produce medical isotopes for medical applications such as diagnostics

and chemotherapy [EA determination, 02/24/93]. The proposal involves

irradiating targets in a nuclear reactor, processing the material, and

disposing of waste. The original proposal was to use the Omega West

Reactor at LANL to produce the isotopes. Since that time, DOE has

decided to permanently shut down that reactor, and it would not be used

for this purpose. Alternatives currently under consideration involving

LANL facilities would include fabricating targets at the Chemistry and

Metallurgy Research Building, processing and recycling irradiated

material at that facility, and disposing of low-level radioactive waste

at LANL's waste management area.

Besides these broad-scale NEPA documents, DOE is in the process of

conducting several environmental analyses for specific proposed

projects at LANL or has made preliminary plans to start such reviews.

Through this prescoping process, the public is invited to comment as to

whether the NEPA reviews listed in Tables 1 and 2 should precede, be

incorporated into, or be deferred until after the SWEIS. In accordance

with requests from the State, tribes, and the public, DOE invites

public comment as to which of these ongoing NEPA reviews should be

included within the scope of alternatives to be analyzed in the SWEIS.

Specifically, as requested by the public, DOE invites comments to

assist in determining either: (1) The project has independent

justification and would not prejudice the outcome of the SWEIS, and the

NEPA review can proceed; (2) the project is integral to alternatives to

be analyzed in the SWEIS, and the NEPA review will be included in the

SWEIS; or (3) the project depends on the outcome of the SWEIS, and the

NEPA review will be deferred until after the SWEIS is completed.

These projects and DOE's initial recommendations are listed in

Table 1. For a few projects, DOE does not make an initial

recommendation but will develop its recommendation after considering

public comment. Table 1 also provides information on the DOE program

which sponsors the proposals and the date of the determination of the

initial level of NEPA review. The Department may initiate other

projects while the SWEIS is being prepared; Table 2 lists planned

projects for which DOE believes NEPA reviews may be needed prior to

completion of the SWEIS but has not yet issued a NEPA determination.

The public is invited to comment on whether these NEPA reviews should

proceed independently of the SWEIS, or should be included in the SWEIS

analysis. The NOI will summarize comments received, explain whether or

not DOE proposes to continue with any of these NEPA reviews, and

describe their relationship to the alternatives suggested in the NOI.

Issues and alternatives. The Department has not yet identified

environmental issues or suggested alternatives for the SWEIS. These

will be developed over the next few months through the prescoping

process with the assistance of stakeholder involvement. The Department

anticipates that alternatives will be issue-driven to allow

alternatives to focus on activities or operations which are of concern

(``at issue'') to the agency or the public. The SWEIS would not analyze

alternatives to current practices for which neither the agency nor the

public have identified any concerns.

The SWEIS will look at reasonable alternatives to the current

situation. The public is specifically invited to comment on whether

analysis of an alternative which would describe phasing out all LANL

operations and eventually decommissioning all facilities (a ``shutdown

alternative'') would be useful for comparison to ongoing activities.

In 1976, LANL was designated as one of four National Environmental

Research Parks (NERPs). The NERPs were established to contribute to the

understanding of how people can live in balance with nature while

enjoying the benefits of technology. The Department has never

instituted an active management plan for the LANL NERP. The public is

specifically invited to comment on whether the SWEIS should contain

alternatives for managing the NERP or whether the designation should be

lifted.

The NEPA process. The DOE NEPA review process is described in the

Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations [40 CFR Parts 1500-

1508] and the DOE NEPA regulations [10 CFR Part 1021]. Through NEPA,

Congress requires that Federal agencies consider environmental impacts

when making decisions and lay the decisionmaking process open to public

scrutiny. An EIS documents the environmental review of major Federal

actions which may significantly affect the human environment; an EA may

be used to determine the need for an EIS or to document that no

significant environmental impacts would be expected to occur.

The EIS process begins with publication of a NOI to solicit public

comments to assist in determining the scope of analysis in the EIS [40

CFR 1501.7; 10 CFR 1021.311]. The Department documents the results of

the scoping process and its plans on how to conduct the EIS review in

an Implementation Plan [10 CFR 1021.312]. An agency publishes a draft

EIS to gain public input into the environmental analysis before a final

EIS is issued [40 CFR 1502.9; 10 CFR 1021.313]. An agency issues a

Record of Decision (ROD) to document its decision and to explain how

the environmental considerations documented in the EIS were balanced

against other factors which led to the decision, such as technical,

regulatory, or financial considerations [40 CFR 1505.2; 10 CFR

1021.315].

A PEIS is a broad-scale analysis of proposed programs or policies

[40 CFR 1502.4(b)], including proposals with geographically connected

actions [40 CFR 1502.4(c)(1)]. A SWEIS is a specific type of PEIS used

to analyze connected actions at a DOE site [10 CFR 1021.330]. An agency

follows the same steps to prepare a SWEIS as for an EIS.

Classified material. The Department will review classified material

while preparing the SWEIS. Within the limits of classification, DOE

will provide to the public as much information as possible. If

necessary, classified information will be segregated into a classified

appendix.

Public involvement opportunities. The Department will conduct

prescoping over the next few months. The results of prescoping will be

provided in the NOI. Through this Advance Notice, DOE asks other

Federal agencies, the State, tribal governments, local governments, and

the general public to assist in identifying the scope of analysis for

the SWEIS, including suggestions on issues, alternatives, and other

topics of interest. As part of the prescoping process, DOE will hold a

series of public information meetings and workshops, and provide other

opportunities for public involvement. These will be publicized in local

media at least two weeks in advance. Other Federal agencies, which

perform work at LANL or manage land that might be affected by LANL

activities, will be consulted about the SWEIS. Information briefings

will be given to the State, affected tribes, and local governments.

Other parties with an interest in LANL's operations, such as private

companies having industrial partnerships with LANL, will be advised of

the SWEIS process. The Department invites stakeholders to submit

written comments on the content of the SWEIS and suggestions on the

SWEIS review process, including suggestions for the conduct or format

of public involvement opportunities, to the address given above.

Comments received prior to October 31, 1994, will be considered in

developing the proposed issues and alternatives for the NOI.

The NOI will explain how comments and issues raised in the

prescoping process have been incorporated into the suggested

alternatives and issues identified in that Notice. Publication of the

NOI will be followed by a second invitation to comment, public

information meetings and workshops, and formal public scoping meetings.

The results of the scoping process will be documented in an

Implementation Plan which will be made available to the public. Other

Federal agencies, the State, tribes, local governments, and the public

will be given the opportunity to review and comment on the draft SWEIS

and participate in public hearings. A final SWEIS will be prepared

which will explain how public comments on the draft were considered.

Following the final SWEIS, DOE intends to issue a ROD to document DOE's

decisions regarding the operation of LANL and explain the measures

identified to mitigate any adverse impacts.

Copies of written comments, summaries of prescoping public

meetings, and other materials pertaining to the development and

analysis of the SWEIS will be made available for public review at the

Los Alamos National Laboratory Community Reading Room, 1450 Central

Ave., Suite 101, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544. For information on the

availability of specific documents and hours of operation, please

contact the reading room at (505) 665-2127 or (800) 543-2342.

Signed in Washington D.C. this 4th day of August, 1994, for the

United States Department of Energy.

Tara O'Toole, M.D., M.P.H.

Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.

Table 1.--Recommendations for Ongoing NEPA Reviews

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

DOE program sponsor/ Discussion, initial

Title, summary NEPA determ. date recommendation

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATEMENTS (EISs)

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

Radioactive Liquid EM 02/08/93............ Discussion: The

Wastewater Treatment existing wastewater

Facility, TA-63. treatment facility,

Proposed facility completed in 1963, is

would replace existing still able to be

30-year-old wastewater operated safely and

treatment facility reliably for a few

which has reached the more years, although

end of its design life. design standards have

changed considerably

since that time. It

is possible that

certain design

details, such as

wastewater stream

source and type, may

depend on sitewide

decisions regarding

the location and use

of other facilities

at LANL. Detailed

design for a

replacement facility

cannot be started

until the NEPA review

is completed, which

in turn would affect

construction

schedules. Initial

Recommendation:

Include in the SWEIS.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS (EAs)

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

Chemistry and DP 09/13/93............ Discussion: CMR first

Metallurgy Research operated in 1952.

(CMR) Building Since then,

Upgrades, TA-3. Part environmental, safety

of a series of and security design

proposed and operating

infrastructure requirements have

renovations to a 40- changed. Utility and

year-old facility used infrastructure

for various research systems at CMR have

projects. CMR supports aged and need to be

activities in several replaced. Although

other LANL facilities. current operations in

The purpose of the CMR are conducted in

upgrades is to reduce a way that protects

risk, enhance the the safety of

safety margin, and workers, the public

provide for the and the environment,

continued safe, some utility and

reliable, and infrastructure

effective use of the upgrades would allow

facility to support CMR operations to

LANL missions for at more closely adhere

least another 20 to 30 to current

years. Some environmental,

renovations were safety, and health

covered by prior NEPA requirements. These

review and are include improving or

currently underway. replacing the

building's

structural,

ventilation,

electrical, facility

monitoring, waste

management, and

security systems.

Another element of

the CMR upgrade

projects would

refurbish Wings 2 and

4 at CMR, to

accommodate LANL

program needs. If the

upgrades were

deferred until after

the SWEIS, CMR would

continue to be used

but would also

continue to

deteriorate as the

building systems

aged. Initial

Recommendation:

Analyze in the EA

those components of

the proposed upgrades

that are needed to

maintain the existing

operation

infrastructure,

improve safety of

operations to workers

and the general

public, enhance CMR

environmental

management systems,

and provide for

improved security.

Include in the SWEIS

the remainder of the

proposed CMR upgrades

which relate to long-

term programmatic

needs, including

refurbishing Wings 2

and 4.

High Explosives DP 03/10/92............ Discussion: This is a

Materials Test small-scale

Facility, TA-11. construction project

Proposed construction to consolidate

and operation of a new ongoing activities at

3,000 square-foot LANL and would not

building for increase LANL's

mechanical and thermal existing testing

tests on high program. If

explosive materials constructing the

and related assemblies building were

in support of DOE's deferred until after

science-based the SWEIS, testing

stockpile stewardship and evaluation would

program. The proposal continue in the

would consolidate in existing facilities.

one building the high Further deterioration

explosives work now of the existing

done in several buildings could

locations at LANL; the disrupt the

existing facilities evaluation program

have deteriorated and create

substantially and are uncertainty in LANL's

inadequate to reliably ability to safely and

support current needs. reliably test high

LANL has an ongoing explosives materials.

mission to evaluate A decision to

aging weapons to construct this

ensure that the building would not

enduring nuclear influence, nor be

weapons stockpile influenced by,

remains safe and sitewide decisions.

reliable; therefore, Initial

LANL must maintain the recommendation:

capability to assure Proceed with EA.

the continuity and

reliability of

evaluation tests and

the safety of workers

performing those tests.

Isotope Separator DP 12/10/92............ Discussion: NEPA

Facility, TA-48. review of this

Proposed 4,000-square- project is not needed

foot laboratory at this time. Initial

facility to develop Recommendation: Defer

pure samples of until after SWEIS.

isotopes to be used as

standards for weapons

and non-weapons

research. This project

has been deferred.

Low Energy Accelerator DP 08/23/92............ Discussion: This is a

Laboratory (LEAL), TA- small-scale

53 (formerly construction project

Accelerator Prototype to support ongoing

Laboratory). Proposed research. If

7,000-square-foot constructing the

laboratory to support building is deferred

development of proton until after the

accelerators for SWEIS, the research

ongoing programs. The would continue in

low-energy, high- existing buildings if

current front end space allowed. A

accelerator prototype decision to construct

would be housed and this building would

operated in this not influence, nor be

proposed building. influenced by,

sitewide decisions.

Initial

Recommendation:

Proceed with EA.

Nuclear Materials DP 08/10/93............ Discussion: The 1986

Storage Facility EA analyzed

Upgrade, TA-55 constructing and

(Revision to 1986 EA). operating the

The 1986 EA covers existing vault to

actions currently consolidate nuclear

needed to correct material storage at

identified design and LANL. The proposal

construction was revised in 1993

deficiencies. The to allow for

revised proposal is to increased storage

increase the storage capability in the

capacity of an vault; the NEPA

existing nuclear determination was to

materials storage revise the 1986 EA to

vault from about 6.6 provide the NEPA

metric tons of review for the

plutonium to about 25 increased capacity.

metric tons (LANL's If the revised NEPA

current inventory is review were to

about 2.6 metric proceed, DOE could

tons), with a make an early

corresponding increase decision on whether

in heat removal to increase the

capability from 20 storage capability of

kilowatts to 75 the existing vault.

kilowatts. The This would be

proposed upgrades necessary if, prior

would also allow to completing

storage of material sitewide decisions,

that generates more DOE needed to store

heat due to at LANL more

radioactive decay. material, or

different types of

material, than is now

on-site or

anticipated under

current mission

workloads. If a

decision to increase

the capacity were

deferred until after

the SWEIS, DOE and

LANL could continue

to work towards

correcting design and

construction

deficiencies but

could not undertake

work that would lead

to increased storage

capacity. The SWEIS

will be used to help

develop a nuclear

materials storage and

handling strategy,

which would include

projections of

amounts of material

anticipated to be on

site if LANL's

weapons mission

changed; sitewide

decisions could

influence decisions

on the future use and

capacity of the

vault. Initial

Recommendation:

Include in SWEIS the

proposal to increase

the vault's capacity

as part of nuclear

materials storage and

handling strategy.

Work to correct

existing design and

construction

deficiencies would

continue.

Safety Testing of Pits DP 06/02/93............ Discussion: This is a

Under Thermal Stress, small-scale project

CMR Building, TA-3 that would not

(formerly Fire require construction

Resistant Pit Test of a new facility. It

Program). Proposed is not connected to

experiments to ensure the infrastructure

that the enduring upgrades at CMR. If

nuclear weapons the test is deferred

stockpile is safe and until after the

would not cause SWEIS, some existing

environmental or uncertainties

health problems in the regarding the safety

event of a fire. The of the nuclear

project would require weapons in the

minor modifications to enduring stockpile

one of the hot cells would remain

at CMR, but would not unresolved. A

require construction decision to conduct

of any new facilities. this test would not

The tests would be on influence, nor be

disarmed nuclear influenced by,

weapons devices (pits) sitewide decisions.

to determine the Initial

potential for Recommendation:

materials failure Proceed with EA.

under fire conditions.

LANL has an ongoing

mission to evaluate

weapons to ensure that

the enduring nuclear

weapons stockpile

remains safe and

reliable.

Transuranic Waste Drum DP 06/11/91............ Discussion: This is a

Staging Building, TA- small-scale project

55. Proposal to that would not

convert an existing require construction

1,000 square-foot of new facilities. If

building within the the project were

Plutonium Facility to deferred until after

temporarily stage the SWEIS, waste

transuranic waste could continue to be

pending transportation stored in laboratory

to LANL's radioactive space. A decision to

waste management area proceed with this

at TA-54. modification would

not influence, nor be

influenced by,

sitewide decisions.

Initial

Recommendation:

Proceed with EA.

Weapons Components Test DP 12/25/92............ Discussion: This is a

Facility Relocation, small-scale project

TA-16. Proposal to that would not

relocate a test shop require construction

to a nearby 11,000- of a new facility. If

square-foot area now the project were

used as a warehouse. deferred until after

The shop is used for the SWEIS, the same

materials tests on testing operations

weapons components and would continue in the

for non-weapons existing space, but

structural tests. A the proposed

new hydraulic load- hydraulic press could

test machine press not be installed. A

would be installed, decision to proceed

and a small addition with this

built to house modification would

hydraulic pumps. not influence, nor be

influenced by,

sitewide decision.

Initial

Recommendation:

Proceed with EA.

Decontaminate, DP/EM 11/04/91......... Discussion: This

Decommission and facility has not

Demolish (DD&D) operated since 1991.

Building 86, High The immediate safety

Pressure Tritium hazard was the

Laboratory, TA-33. removal of tritium-

Proposed demolition of contaminated

a 40-year-old tritium- equipment, which is

contaminated building being accomplished.

after removing tritium- There is no immediate

contaminated need to perform DD&D,

equipment. Tritium and this action would

inventory and produce potentially

equipment removal were contaminated building

covered under a rubble that would

separate NEPA review have to be disposed

and are currently of. Initial

underway. The building Recommendation:

is being monitored to Include in the SWEIS

determine residual the remaining DD&D to

tritium levels. Future help determine

DD&D of the building potential waste

would be done under volumes for future

the EM program, but disposal.

the facility currently

remains under DP

management.

New Sanitary Landfill. DP/EM 05/09/91......... Discussion: A decision

Proposal to locate, on where to locate

construct, and operate the new landfill and

a new sanitary how much capacity it

landfill at LANL. should have would

depend on sitewide

decisions regarding

other facilities and

a waste management

strategy. Initial

Recommendation:

Include in SWEIS.

Actinide Source Term EM 12/09/92............ Discussion: This is a

Waste Test Program, small-scale project

CMR Building, TA-3. that would not

Proposal to conduct require construction

tests to determine of a new facility. It

under controlled is not connected to

conditions how the infrastructure

actinides (radioactive upgrades at CMR. If

elements) behave when the test program is

exposed to brine. This deferred until after

test will be used to the SWEIS, existing

provide information uncertainties

important to the regarding the

decision on whether or performance of WIPP

not to operate the would remain

Waste Isolation Pilot unresolved and the

Plant (WIPP) in schedule for

Carlsbad, New Mexico. completing the

The test results are performance

needed by 12/95 to assessment would not

complete the WIPP be met. A decision to

performance conduct this test

assessment; to meet would not influence,

this schedule, tests nor be influenced by,

must begin in 1994. sitewide decisions.

Initial

Recommendation:

Proceed with EA.

Controlled Air EM 10/20/90............ Discussion: The

Incinerator, Expanded Controlled Air

Operations, TA-50. Incinerator has

Proposal to use an undergone extensive

existing incinerator safety and

to treat environmental environmental

restoration and upgrades to support

operational waste converting the

generated at various facility's mission

areas of LANL. The from a research and

incinerator has development facility

previously been to an operational

permitted and has facility in support

operated a total of of treating both

2,607 hours over 15 hazardous and mixed

years as a research waste. The SWEIS will

and development be used to develop a

facility. Incinerating waste management

waste destroys toxic strategy; analyzing

organic constituents impacts of

and generally reduces incinerating

waste volume operational waste

dramatically. could be an important

Incineration is a element of that

recommended best strategy. Initial

demonstrated available Recommendation:

technology within Include treatment

environmental operation of the

statutes. DOE has a incinerator in SWEIS.

milestone to complete DOE makes no

a trial burn by 02/13/ recommendation

95 under its Federal whether work would

Facility Compliance continue to conduct a

Agreement with the trial burn as

Environmental required by the

Protection Agency Federal Facility

(EPA). If the trial Compliance Agreement.

burn is successful, DOE will continue to

DOE and the EPA will work with regulators

develop a plan for and the public to

additional milestones. determine the

appropriate

activities for the

Controlled Air

Incinerator.

Expansion of Area G, EM 10/20/90............ Discussion: The

Radioactive Waste original proposal

Disposal Site, TA-54. would provide long-

Proposal to expand an term, large-scale

existing 63-acre low- expansion of the

level radioactive waste disposal area.

waste management area Some expansion of

which is anticipated LANL's waste handling

to reach capacity in 3 capacity would be

to 5 years. The needed in 3 to 5

original proposal was years to accommodate

to expand by an environmental

additional 70 acres to restoration, D&D, and

provide an additional other operational

20 years of disposal waste. It is not

capability; a smaller clear at this time

30-acre area is also what the projected

considered, as well as volumes of waste

a 5-acre area that might be over the

would provide disposal next 20 years. LANL

capability for up to 8 is increasing waste

years. There are no minimization efforts

archeological sites in and it is possible

the 5-acre area. that site missions

could change; the

sitewide analysis

will help develop

projections of waste

volume and type. The

smaller, 5-acre

proposal would allow

for up to 8 years of

additional disposal

capacity in the event

that it is needed

while the sitewide

analysis is being

completed. If no

expansion takes place

prior to the SWEIS,

it is possible that

existing waste

disposal areas may be

filled prior to

completing sitewide

decisions. Initial

Recommendation:

Include in the SWEIS.

If a compelling need

can be shown for

additional disposal

capacity prior to

completing sitewide

decisions, DOE may,

at a later time,

propose a separate

NEPA review to

address those needs.

Hazardous Waste EM 04/26/91............ Discussion: The

Treatment Facility and Hazardous Waste

Mixed Waste Receiving Treatment Facility is

and Storage Facility, needed for on-site

TA-63. Proposal to waste management and

construct and operate to help DOE meet

two waste management compliance milestones

facilities to regarding legacy

repackage, stage and waste. Delays in

treat hazardous and completing design and

mixed wastes which initiating

cannot be placed in construction could

land disposal areas. jeopardize meeting

The two facilities the Agreement. If

would be connected this project is

actions because they deferred until the

would be located close SWEIS, the compliance

together and they milestone could not

support each other; be met. The Mixed

therefore the NEPA Waste Receiving and

review has been Storage Facility,

combined. DOE has an while not tied to a

initial milestone of specific compliance

01/30/95 for milestone, would

completing the assist DOE in meeting

detailed design for near-term site waste

the proposed Hazardous management goals.

Waste Treatment Although the NEPA

Facility to comply determination was to

with its Federal analyze these two

Facility Compliance facilities together,

Agreement with the the cumulative

EPA; the NEPA review impacts of waste

must be completed disposal operations

prior to beginning the would be analyzed in

detailed design. The the SWEIS. Initial

proposal includes Recommendation:

using small-scale, Proceed with EA.

self-contained

portable ``skids'' to

treat the waste.

High Explosives EM 06/29/92............ Discussion: DOE needs

Wastewater Treatment to address water

Facility, TA-16. pollution compliance

Proposal to construct independent of SWEIS

and operate a analysis. If

wastewater treatment construction is not

facility to treat started by 10/97, DOE

wastewater containing would not meet its

trace amounts of high compliance milestone

explosives waste. The and LANL would not

project would include meet the

constructing a Administrative Order.

delivery pipeline and To start construction

decontamination and by that date, design

demolition of an work must be

existing treatment completed; detailed

facility. The project design could not

would minimize start until the NEPA

wastewater generation review is completed.

by eliminating 99 If the design work

percent of current was deferred until

wastewater flows after sitewide

through a combination decisions, the

of wastewater schedule could not be

elimination, recycle, met. The SWEIS is

and reuse. It would expected to result in

reduce the number of a sitewide waste

industrial wastewater management strategy;

outfalls from the 17 this facility could

currently in use to 1. be important to that

On 6/15/94 the EPA strategy. Work to

issued an minimize in-plant

Administrative Order waste and eliminate

to LANL requiring some wastewater

compliance with Clean outfalls would not

Water Act permitting influence, nor be

requirements. DOE has influenced by,

a milestone of 10/97 sitewide decisions.

to start construction Initial

under its Federal Recommendation: DOE

Facility Compliance makes no

Agreement with the EPA. recommendation at

this time regarding

proceeding with this

NEPA review.

Mixed Waste Disposal EM 07/13/93............ Discussion: The EPA

Facility, TA-67. issued a Hazardous

Proposed facility to and Solid Waste Act

treat and dispose of Permit to LANL that

mixed (radioactive and requires LANL provide

hazardous) waste a list of solid waste

generated at LANL. The management units. The

entire project would workplans for cleanup

consist of up to 11 of the units, to be

waste disposal cells submitted prior to

and would hold up to the investigation

475,000 cubic yards of phase, will contain

waste generated by schedules for

environmental completing the site

restoration work at investigation work.

LANL. These schedules, once

accepted by the EPA,

will be legally

enforceable

milestones under the

conditions described

in the Permit. In

addition, it is

expected that

voluntary corrective

actions will be

undertaken to

remediate a majority

of the sites during

the site

investigation phase.

The facility would

provide the capacity

to safely treat and

dispose of the waste

expected to be

generated by this

program. The NEPA

review must be

completed before

detailed designs are

started. If the

detailed design phase

is delayed until the

SWEIS is completed,

the DOE and LANL will

not be able to meet

the cleanup

schedules. In 1993,

DOE conducted nine

public meetings on

the scope of the NEPA

review of the entire

project to allow the

project milestones to

be met while the

SWEIS is under

preparation. Under

the Environmental

Assessment currently

being prepared, the

facility would be

constructed for the

disposal of

environmental

restoration waste

only. Discussions

concerning the

potential disposal of

legacy and

operational mixed

waste will be part of

the SWEIS

environmental

restoration and waste

management strategy.

The total projected

volume of legacy and

operational mixed

waste would be less

than one percent of

the projected total

annual waste volumes.

Initial

Recommendation: DOE

makes no

recommendation at

this time regarding

proceeding with this

NEPA review. However,

DOE proposes to

proceed with the EA

review for the

environmental

restoration waste

only and make the

draft EA available to

stakeholders to

assist in the

decision making

process. Include in

the SWEIS the

analysis of the

disposal of legacy

and operational mixed

wastes.

National Biomedical none 12/17/93.......... Discussion: DOE has

Tracer Facility. not yet determined a

Proposal to locate, sponsor or funding

construct, and operate profiles for this

a facility at LANL to project. Initial

use accelerator Recommendation: Defer

technology to produce until after SWEIS.

radioisotopes for

medical research and

applications. The

facility would house a

proton accelerator,

laboratories, and

office space.

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

Abbreviations used in Table:

DOE: Department of Energy; DP: DOE Defense Programs; EA: Environmental

Assessment; EM: DOE Environmental Management; EPA: Environmental

Protection Agency; LANL: Los Alamos National Laboratory; SWEIS:

Sitewide Environmental Impact Statement; TA: Technical Area.

Table 2.--Planned NEPA Reviews Recommended to Proceed Prior to

Completion of SWEIS

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

DOE program

Title, summary sponsor Discussion

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

Laundry. DOE is considering DP Currently, laundry is done

proposing to locate, in an off-site facility.

construct, and operate an It is possible that an on-

on-site facility to launder site facility would be

anti-contamination clothing more efficient. This is a

which may potentially be small-scale project that

contaminated with would not influence, nor

radioactive materials from be influenced by, sitewide

ongoing activities. decisions. If decisions on

the laundry are deferred

until after the SWEIS, DOE

would continue to use an

off-site contract laundry.

Receipt and Storage of DP The DOE sites listed no

Nuclear Material for longer have any

Criticality Experiment, TA- programmatic need for this

18. DOE is considering material. Hanford can no

proposing to ship nuclear longer provide long-term

material from various DOE storage due to clean-up

sites to the Los Alamos operations now going on;

Critical Experiments if not moved off-site, it

Facility (LACEF), and store will be disposed of by

the material at that burial at Hanford. The

facility, until it is Sandia material is unique

needed for criticality and was developed at

experiments or training significant taxpayer

exercises. The experiments expense; the Department of

or training exercises would Defense might fund

be covered by separate NEPA shipment to LANL if it can

review. DOE currently has be accomplished in the

about 3,000 unirradiated near-term. The Oak Ridge

low-enriched uranium material has been used as

nuclear reactor fuel rods an important calibrated

at its Hanford Plant, radiation source for

Richland, Washington; about accident simulation and

30 kilograms of radiation dosimetry; this

unirradiated high-enriched device is the only one in

uranium particle bed fuel this country which has

at its Sandia National been characterized to make

Laboratory, Albuquerque, the dosimetric

New Mexico; and about 250 measurements essential for

kilograms of high-enriched analyzing accident

uranium reactor fuel from conditions and other

the critical mass assembly radiation experiments.

at its Health Physics LANL has an ongoing

Research Reactor, Oak Ridge criticality experiments

National Laboratory, Oak and safety training

Ridge, Tennessee. The LACEF program and can make use

is the only remaining DOE of this material in the

facility where criticality future. If decisions on

experiments are routinely receiving and storing the

conducted. In response to material are deferred

the 1993 Defense Nuclear until the SWEIS, it is

Facilities Safety Board possible that storage,

recommendation regarding shipping or funding

critical facilities constraints would make the

infrastructure, DOE is material unavailable to

considering consolidating LANL. Decisions regarding

unique critical mass the long-term use of the

assemblies at the LACEF in LACEF would be made in the

order to continue to SWEIS as part of the

reliably analyze the sitewide nuclear materials

criticality of nuclear storage and handling

systems. strategy

Hazardous, Low Level EM The current Hazardous Waste

Radioactive, and Mixed Treatment Facility and

Waste Treatment Skids. DOE Mixed Waste Receiving and

uses portable, self- Storage Facility proposal

contained treatment units, includes the use of

or ``skids,'' to treat certain ``skids''

hazardous, low-level specifically for treating

radioactive, and mixed waste at these facilities.

(radioactive and hazardous) DOE may need to use

waste. In addition to the additional ``skids'' to

``skids'' specifically treat on-site waste at

proposed as part of the various locations at LANL

Hazardous Waste Treatment in order to meet the

Facility, DOE may require schedule for DOE's Federal

additional ``skids'' to Facility Compliance

treat waste at various Agreement with the

locations at LANL. Environmental Protection

Agency. The additional

``skids'' would be

designed, constructed, and

possibly operated prior to

completion of the proposed

Hazardous Waste Treatment

Facility and prior to

completion of the SWEIS to

meet the Agreement

schedule. If the project

is deferred until the

SWEIS, the ``skids'' could

not be designed,

constructed or used in the

near-term.

Replacement Waste Compactor EM Discussion: This is a small-

TA-54. DOE is considering scale project which would

proposing to replace an increase operational

existing 50-ton waste efficiency and reduce

compactor at the low-level waste volume. This, in

radioactive waste turn, would extend the

management area at Area G, useful life of the

TA-54, with a 200-ton existing disposal area. If

compactor in a new building installing the proposed

adjacent to the existing compactor is deferred

facility. Initially, DOE until the SWEIS, the

considered including the existing compactor would

analysis of this proposal not be replaced and

with the NEPA review for inefficient waste disposal

the proposal to expand Area practices would continue

G, TA-54; however, the NEPA in the existing area. A

determination for that decision to install and

proposal did not include operate the compactor

the compactor. The existing would not influence, nor

compactor is not operating. be influenced by, sitewide

The proposed replacement decisions.

compactor would increase

the operating life of the

existing waste disposal

area by increasing the

efficiency of waste

minimization practices,

including reducing the

volume of waste for

disposal and eliminating

void spaces between waste

containers. This, in turn,

would postpone the need to

expand the existing waste

site.

Radioisotope Heat Source NE The 1991 EA analyzed using

Fabrication, CMR, TA-3 and LANL facilities at TA-55

TA-55 (Revision to 1991 to support radioisotope

EA). Plutonium-238 is used thermoelectric generator

as a long-term, reliable (RTG) work for the space

source of heat that is mission. The proposal may

converted to electricity to be revised to allow for

power spacecraft. In 1991 RTG work for other

DOE completed an EA for the missions, beyond the

Cassini mission and the timeframe included in the

Comet Rendezvous Asteroid 1991 EA, and possibly

Flyby (CRAF); CRAF was using facilities at the

later canceled. The work at Chemistry and Metallurgy

LANL to support the Cassini Research Building in

mission is ongoing. The addition to TA-55. If so,

project to build more units the 1991 EA would be

for other uses may be revised to provide the

extended at LANL. NEPA review for the

revised mission. If the

revised NEPA review were

to proceed, DOE could make

early decisions on whether

to use LANL facilities for

the additional RTG work.

This would be necessary

if, prior to completing

sitewide decisions, DOE

needed to determine where

the additional RTG work

would be done in the near-

term in order to meet

mission schedules. If the

project is deferred until

the SWEIS, it is possible

that DOE may not be able

to deliver heat sources to

meet mission needs. Any

future long-term uses of

LANL facilities for such

missions, and long-term

strategy for storing and

handling plutonium-238,

will be included in the

SWEIS.

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

Abbreviations used in Table:

DOE: Department of Energy; DP: DOE Defense Programs; EA: Environmental

Assessment; EM: DOE Environmental Management; EPA: Environmental

Protection Agency; LANL: Los Alamos National Laboratory; SWEIS:

Sitewide Environmental Impact Statement; TA: Technical Area.

[FR Doc. 94-19532 Filed 8-9-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P