Proposed Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the M1 Breacher Life Cycle Environmental Assessment

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Proposed Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the M1

Breacher Life Cycle Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: U.S. Army Program Executive Office, Ground Combat & Support

Systems.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969 and Army Regulation 200-2, the proposed FONSI for the M1

Breacher is being published for comment. The U.S. Army Program

Executive Office, Ground Combat & Support Systems (PEO-GCSS) has

prepared a Life Cycle Environmental Assessment (LCEA) which examines

the potential impacts to the natural and human environment from the

proposed development of the Breacher as a combat vehicle that combines

capabilities to reduce both simple and complex obstacle systems into a

single armored vehicle chassis. Based on the LCEA, PEO-GCSS and the

Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) have determined the

proposed action is not a major Federal action significantly affecting

the quality of the human environment, within the meaning of NEPA.

Therefore the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not

required and the Army is issuing this proposed FONSI.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning the proposed

action should be directed to Mr. Brian Bonkosky, Program Executive

Office, Ground Combat & Support Systems, Breacher Product Manager's

Office, ATTN: SFAE-GCSS-CV-B, Warren, Michigan 48397-5000, telephone

number: (810) 574-7687, fax number: (810) 574-7822.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Note: PEO, GCSS absorbed the U.S. Army

Program Executive Office, Armored Systems Modernization (PEO, ASM) in

September 1996. The LCEA, upon which this FONSI is based, was conducted

within PEO, ASM. Organizational references within the LCEA to PEO, ASM

should be considered to be changed to PEO, GCSS.

Proposed Action

This LCEA examines the potential impacts to the natural and human

environment from the proposed development of the M1 Breacher as a

combat vehicle combining capabilities to reduce both simple and complex

obstacle systems into a single armored vehicle chassis. The Breacher

would meet the Army's Operational Requirements Document (ORD) specified

requirements for increased capability in a single armored vehicle based

on the M1 Abrams chassis. These requirements call for capability to

remove and destroy obstacles to troop and vehicular movement (such as

ditches, berms, barbed wire, and other natural or man-made obstacles).

The Breacher also provides countermine capability, as well as more

mobility and survivability than is currently available. In accordance

with the Army's combat maintenance emphasis on designing for discard,

Breacher combat components, to the maximum extent feasible, would be

designed for discard at failure in the field. However, in non-combat

situations, packaging, handling, and storage for transportation of

Breacher systems would include the consideration of such recycling and

pollution prevention measures as employing reusable containers and the

breakdown and recycling of discarded components.

[[Page 54778]]

Environmental Impacts

The Breacher vehicle life cycle includes design and manufacture,

transport of vehicles to test sites, testing, production vehicle

manufacturing, deployment and operations of production vehicles, and

eventual demilitarization. Potential environmental impacts of these

life cycle stages may include air, water, hazardous waste, noise,

biotic, and socioeconomic (social, economic, historical,

archaeological, and cultural) impacts at each of these life cycle

phases.

Constructing and assembling Breacher units involves working with a

variety of industrial processes and materials, and would involve the

generation of air emissions, wastewater discharges, and limited

quantities of solid and hazardous wastes at various facilities, which

in turn may result in impacts to air, water, biotic, and socioeconomic

resources at those facilities. Transport of assembled vehicles can

result in minor environmental impacts along the various transport

routes.

Breacher units would receive preliminary testing at the production

facilities and then be transported to a number of other Army facilities

for various stages of testing before deployment. Testing of the

Breacher would involve determining its transportability, performance

capabilities, and vulnerability/survivability to various combat

threats. Simulated field training and combat conditions would be

employed during this testing. Testing phase environmental impacts may

involve modest amounts of various emissions (particularly air

emissions) resulting from truck and rail transport between the

production facilities and the testing facilities. These emissions could

result in modest impacts to air, water, biotic, and socioeconomic

resources along the travel routes. Testing of the Breacher units would

result in air emissions from the Breacher, smoke, dust, and other

materials from field testing, as well as land disturbance from the

Breacher tracks and from breaching operations. This land disturbance

could result in some habitat destruction and nonpoint source runoff at

the test ranges, particularly at more vulnerable sites.

Operational impacts are likely to be quite similar to, somewhat

more extensive, and greatly more dispersed in place and time than the

impacts described for the manufacture and testing described above.

Demilitarization impacts would be similar to manufacturing impacts, but

would likely involve more extensive generation of solid and hazardous

waste. Recycling of components and alternative end uses could reduce

this waste generation.

a. Comparison of Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives

(Including the Proposed Action). None of the alternatives would result

in significant impacts to the human environment. There would be some

modest differences in intensity of impacts between the alternatives in

the design and manufacturing, deployment and operations, and

demilitarization phases of the Breacher life cycle due to the larger

number of vehicles produced in the higher production alternative and

the use of new materials to produce the vehicle chassis in the

unrecycled alternative. All of the alternatives would have the same

level of impacts in the transport to test site, testing, and transport

to deployment site life cycle stages because the activities in those

phases would be identical for all alternatives.

The proposed action would be likely to have the least impacts of

all of the alternatives considered because the Breacher vehicle would

eliminate the use of various types of equipment that are less well

suited to its mission. The Breacher would thus be less likely to suffer

the type of accidents, breakdowns, and leakage during operations that

could result in substantial releases of hazardous substances into the

air and water or onto the ground. Such impacts will continue to occur

under the no action alternative, and likely increase in the future as

the current inventory of equipment ages. This factor would likely more

than offset the modest emissions, discharges, and potential releases

that result from the production of the Breacher vehicles. The location

alternative would be likely to have greater impacts than the proposed

action because the UDLP San Jose, California plant is located in a more

sensitive environmental setting than the UDLP York, Pennsylvania plant.

The higher production alternative would have a greater impact than the

proposed action because the increased production would result in more

emissions, discharges, and releases. The unrecycled alternative would

result in greater impacts than the proposed action because the reliance

on new materials and the absence of recycling of existing M1 Abrams

vehicles would result in the generation of considerably more solid and

hazardous waste.

b. Summary of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action.

Impacts from the proposed action would be minimal and not significant

for the following reasons (references in the parentheses refer to pages

in the LCEA):

(1) Solid and Hazardous Waste Impacts. Solid and hazardous waste

impacts would not be significant because even though measurable

environmental impacts would be likely to occur during the design and

manufacture stage there is no evidence of any environmental violation

history at either Anniston Army Depot or the UDLP plant at York,

Pennsylvania. In addition, during the transport to test facility and

test phases no measurable environmental impacts would be likely under

normal conditions and while there might be some likelihood of

measurable environmental impacts from accidents they would still be

likely to be minor. (See pp. 18-19, 25, 33, 47-48, 50).

(2) Water Quality Impacts. Water quality impacts would not be

significant because the amounts of both point source and nonpoint

pollutants from all of the life cycle stages would likely result in no

measurable environmental impacts under normal conditions and there

would be little likelihood of measurable impacts even under accidents.

(See pp. 19-20, 24-25, 33-35, 38, 45, 47-49).

(3) Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts would not be

significant because the very minor amount of air emissions from all of

the life cycle stages would likely result in no measurable

environmental impacts under normal conditions and there would be little

likelihood of measurable impacts even under accidents. (See pp. 20, 26,

32, 47, 48-49).

(4) Noise impacts. Noise impacts would not be significant to either

human or wildlife populations because noise-producing activities would

be of short duration under all life cycle stages and the facilities

where the activities would take place are well-buffered from sensitive

human populations. (See pp. 20, 26, 32-33).

(5) Biotic Resources Impacts. Biotic resources impacts would not be

significant because only negligible wildlife disturbance would result

from any direct disturbance or from nonpoint source runoff associated

with soil disturbance during any of the life cycle stages.

Additionally, such disturbance would be widely dispersed at a number of

facilities and thus even less significant at any one of the facilities.

(See pp. 20, 26, 32-35, 38, 45, 48-49).

(6) Socioeconomic Resources Impacts. Socioeconomic resources

impacts would not be significant because the economic activity involved

would simply supplement or replace other activities that might

otherwise be

[[Page 54779]]

occurring at the facilities involved. To that extent these impacts

would be generally positive. Since no new facilities need to be

constructed and no facilities will be closed as a result of the

proposed action there would be very little chance of any negative

socioeconomic impacts occurring. Likewise, no significant cultural

resources impacts would be expected. (See pp. 20, 26, 35).

(7) Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts would be very unlikely

because of the modest intensity of all activities involved in the

Breacher life cycle and the dispersed nature of those activities.

Coupled with their low intensity and widespread nature, the lack of

general environmental compliance problems at any of the facilities

involved in the Breacher life cycle reinforces this conclusion. (See

pp. 23, 27, 36, 39, 46, 49).

(8) Mitigation of Impacts. The use of readily available pollution

prevention measures in place at the facilities that would be involved

in the proposed action would be likely to mitigate the environmental

impacts of all life cycle stages to the point of being undetectable, or

at the most negligible. (See pp. 23, 27, 36-37, 46, 49).

c. Summary of the Significance of Environmental Consequences and

Mitigation Opportunities. Because of the relatively modest number of

Breacher vehicles anticipated to be constructed, existing and

anticipated environmental compliance at the various Breacher

facilities, and the availability of mitigation measures such as in-

place pollution prevention and nonpoint source control programs, these

impacts are not expected to be significant. All military and civilian

facilities have in-place pollution prevention, pollution control, and

emergency preparedness programs. None of these facilities have

extensive environmental compliance problems. Thus, the direct, indirect

and cumulative impacts of the proposed action or alternatives would not

be expected to cause significant adverse impacts to the human

environment.

Alternatives Considered: Alternatives considered in this

environmental assessment include: (1) the proposed action (preferred

alternative) of manufacturing 313 Breacher vehicles by tearing down and

recycling existing M1 Abrams tanks; (2) a ``no-action'' alternative

halting the current program as of June 1966; (3) a ``location

alternative'' that would consist of carrying out the proposed action at

a different facility; (4) a ``higher-production'' alternative of 500

vehicles rather than the 313 vehicles proposed in the preferred

alternative; and (5) an ``unrecycled alternative'' that would involve

carrying out the proposed action using all new components rather than

recycling M1 Abrams tank chassis. No other alternatives have been

considered because the demonstrated need for the Breacher system to

carry out the minefield breaching and countermine missions makes the

five alternatives considered above a reasonable range of alternatives.

Determination

Based on the analyses in the LCEA, production and deployment of the

Breacher do not constitute a major Federal action significantly

affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of

NEPA. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed

action is not required.

Gregory D. Showalter,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 96-27013 Filed 10-21-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-P