Record of Decision: Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the State of New Mexico

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision: Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for

Continued Operation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the State

of New Mexico

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this Record of

Decision on the continued operation of the Los Alamos National

Laboratory (LANL) in the State of New Mexico. This Record of Decision

is based on the information and analysis contained in the Site-Wide

Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of the Los

Alamos National Laboratory, DOE/EIS-0238 (including the classified

supplement), and other factors, including the mission responsibilities

of the Department, and comments received on the final Site-Wide

Environmental Impact Statement. DOE has decided to implement the

Preferred Alternative, which, with certain limitations, is the Expanded

Operations Alternative. This alternative would expand operations at

LANL, as the need arises, to increase the level of existing operations

to the highest reasonably foreseeable levels, and to fully implement

the mission elements assigned to LANL.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the Site-

Wide Environmental Impact Statement or to receive a copy of the Site-

Wide Environmental Impact Statement or other information related to

this Record of Decision, contact: Corey Cruz, Document Manager, U.S.

Department of Energy, Albuquerque Operations Office, P.O. Box 5400,

Albuquerque, NM 87185, (505) 845-4282.

For information on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

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

and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at

(800) 472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

DOE prepared this Record of Decision pursuant to the regulations of

the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR

Parts 1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part

1021). This Record of Decision is based, in part, on DOE's Site-Wide

Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of the Los

Alamos National Laboratory, (DOE/EIS-0238). LANL is located in north-

central New Mexico, 60 miles (96 kilometers) north-northeast of

Albuquerque, 25 miles (40 kilometers) northwest of Santa Fe, and 20

miles (32 kilometers) southwest of Espanola. LANL occupies an area of

approximately 27,832 acres (11,272 hectares), or approximately 43

square miles (111 square kilometers), of which 86 percent lies within

Los Alamos County and 14 percent within Santa Fe County. The Fenton

Hill site (Technical Area [TA]-57), a remote site 20 miles (32

kilometers) west of LANL, occupies 15 acres (6 hectares) in Sandoval

County on land leased from the U.S. Forest Service. LANL is divided

into 49 separate Technical Areas. LANL is a multi-disciplinary,

multipurpose national laboratory engaged in theoretical and

experimental research and development. DOE has assigned elements of

each of its four principal missions (National Security, Energy

Resources, Environmental Quality, and Science) to LANL, and has

established and maintains several capabilities in support of these

mission elements, including applications of science and technology to

the nuclear weapons program. These capabilities also support

applications for other Federal agencies and other organizations in

accordance with national priorities and policies.

DOE is currently engaged in other NEPA reviews that include LANL as

an alternate location for the action under consideration. These other

NEPA reviews include programmatic and project Environmental Impact

Statements for Waste Management and Surplus Plutonium Disposition.

Since these other Environmental Impact Statements identify potential

new or expanded activities for LANL, the impacts of these activities

are described under the Preferred Alternative in the Site-Wide

Environmental Impact Statement. The nature of the decisions in this

Record of Decision with regard to the Waste Management programmatic and

project proposals is simply to reserve infrastructure at LANL pending

completion of these programmatic and project reviews and the

corresponding decision document. With regard to the Surplus Plutonium

Disposition program, the nature of the decision in this Record of

Decision is to maintain the competency and capability to fabricate the

Lead Assemblies as evaluated in the Surplus Plutonium Disposition

Environmental Impact Statement (SPD EIS). However, the availability and

capacity of facilities to perform such work may be limited because of

competing priorities from the weapons program. DOE's resolution of any

such competing priorities will be reflected in the Record of Decision

for the SPD EIS.

DOE was directed by Congress (Pub. L. 105-119) to convey or

transfer parcels of DOE land in the vicinity of LANL to the

Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New Mexico, and the Secretary of the

Interior, in trust for the San Ildefonso Pueblo. Such parcels, or

tracts of land, must not be required to meet the national security

mission of LANL and must also meet other criteria established by the

Act. DOE has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement to examine

the potential environmental impacts associated with the conveyance or

transfer of 10 specific parcels. EPA published a Notice of Availability

for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Conveyance and

Transfer of Certain Land Tracts Administered by the Department of

Energy and Located at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos and

Santa Fe Counties, New Mexico, in the Federal Register on February 26,

1999.

The Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement considers the

environmental impacts of ongoing and proposed activities at LANL. DOE

expects that it will continue to suggest new programs, projects, and

facilities for LANL (or consider LANL as an alternative site for such

facilities or activities). These new proposals will be analyzed in

programmatic or project-specific NEPA reviews, as they become ripe for

decision. Subsequent NEPA reviews

[[Page 50798]]

will make reference to, and be tiered from, the Site-wide Environmental

Impact Statement; and subsequent DOE decisions on these proposals may

amend this Record of Decision.

Alternatives Considered

DOE analyzed four broad alternative levels of operation at the Los

Alamos National Laboratory. The four alternatives are as follows:

Alternative 1--No Action

The No Action Alternative reflects the levels of operation at LANL

that are currently planned. This includes operations that provide for

continued support of DOE's four primary missions, but would not include

an increase in the existing pit manufacturing capacity (beyond the

current capacity of 14 pits per year) nor expansion of the low-level

waste disposal facility at Technical Area-54 (the remaining space in

the existing Area G footprint would be used, but some low-level waste

would be shipped off-site for disposal). This alternative includes the

maintenance of existing capabilities, continued support/infrastructure

activities, and implementation of several facility construction or

modification projects throughout LANL that have previous NEPA reviews.

Alternative 2--Expanded Operations (DOE's Preferred Alternative Except

for Pit Manufacturing)

The Expanded Operations Alternative would expand operations at

LANL, as the need arises, to increase the level of existing operations

to the highest reasonably foreseeable levels, and to fully implement

the mission elements assigned to LANL. This includes the impacts of the

full implementation of pit manufacturing up to a capacity of 50 pits

per year under single-shift operations (80 pits per year using multiple

shifts). This alternative includes the expansion of the low-level waste

disposal site at Technical Area-54, including receipt of off-site

wastes. In addition, this alternative includes the continued

maintenance of existing and expanded capabilities, continued support/

infrastructure activities, and implementation of several facility

construction or modification projects at Technical Area-53 (i.e., the

Long-Pulse Spallation Source, the 5-Megawatt Target/Blanket

Experimental Area, the Dynamic Experiment Laboratory, and the Isotope

Production Facility).

Alternative 3--Reduced Operations

The Reduced Operations Alternative reflects the minimum levels of

operation at LANL considered necessary to maintain the capabilities to

support DOE missions over the near-term (through the year 2007). While

the capabilities are maintained under this alternative, this may not

constitute full support of the mission elements currently assigned to

LANL. This alternative reflects pit manufacturing at a level below the

existing capacity (at 6 to 12 pits per year) and reflects shipment of

much of the low-level waste generated at LANL for off-site disposal

(on-site disposal would be limited to those waste types for which LANL

has a unique capability at Area G). This alternative includes the

maintenance of existing capabilities, continued support/infrastructure

activities, and implementation of several facility construction or

modification projects throughout LANL that have previous NEPA reviews;

some of the projects previously reviewed under NEPA would be reduced in

scope or eliminated (e.g., the Low-Energy Demonstration Accelerator

would only be operated at the lower end of its energy range).

Alternative 4--``Greener''

The ``Greener'' Alternative reflects increased levels of operation

at LANL in support of nonproliferation, basic science, and materials

recovery/stabilization mission elements, and reduced levels of

operation in support of defense and nuclear weapons mission elements.

All LANL capabilities are maintained for the short term under this

alternative; however, this may not constitute full support of the

nuclear weapons mission elements currently assigned to LANL. This

alternative reflects pit manufacturing at a level below the existing

capacity (at 6 to 12 pits per year) and reflects shipment of much of

the low-level waste generated at LANL for off-site disposal (on-site

disposal would be limited to those waste types for which LANL has a

unique capability at Area G). This alternative includes the maintenance

of existing capabilities, continued support/infrastructure activities,

and implementation of several facility construction or modification

projects at Technical Area-53 (i.e., the Long-Pulse Spallation Source,

the 5-Megawatt Target/Blanket Experimental Area, the Dynamic Experiment

Laboratory, and the Isotope Production Facility.) The name and general

description for this alternative were provided by interested public

stakeholders as a result of the scoping process.

Preferred Alternative

In the draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, the

Preferred Alternative was the Expanded Operations Alternative. In the

final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, the Expanded Operations

Alternative is the Preferred Alternative with one modification, which

involves the level at which pit manufacturing would be implemented at

LANL. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, DOE would expand

operations at LANL, as the need arises, to increase the level of

existing operations to the highest reasonably foreseeable levels. This

expansion of operations would apply broadly to the essential science

and technology activities across LANL, and would apply to the level of

activity for those operations (e.g., increased throughput or increased

numbers of experiments). The Expanded Operations alternative includes

expansion to fully implement pit manufacturing up to the capacity of 50

pits per year under single-shift operations (80 pits per year using

multiple shifts) assigned to LANL in the Record of Decision for the

Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement.

However, as a result of delays in the implementation of the

Capability Maintenance and Improvement Project and recent additional

controls and operational constraints applied to work conducted in the

Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Building, DOE has determined,

as a matter of policy, to postpone any decision to expand pit

manufacturing beyond a level of a nominal 20 pits per year in the near

future (through the year 2007), and to study further methods for

implementing the 50 pits per year production capacity. The revised

Preferred Alternative reflects implementing pit manufacturing at the

20-pit-per-year level. This postponement does not modify the long-term

goal announced in the Record of Decision for the Stockpile Stewardship

and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement of 50 pits

per year (up to 80 pits per year using multiple shifts).

The Preferred Alternative includes the expansion of the low-level

waste disposal site at Technical Area-54. The Preferred Alternative

also includes the continued maintenance of existing and expanded

capabilities, continued support/infrastructure activities, and

implementation of several facility construction or modification

projects at Technical Area-53 (i.e., the Long-Pulse Spallation Source,

the 5-Megawatt Target/Blanket Experimental Area, the Dynamic Experiment

Laboratory, and the Isotope Production Facility).

[[Page 50799]]

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The Council on Environmental Quality, in its ``Forty Most Asked

Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations'' (46 FR 18026, 2/23/81),

with regard to 40 CFR 1505.2, defined the ``environmentally preferable

alternative'' as the alternative ``that will promote the national

environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101. Ordinarily,

this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the

biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative

which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and

natural resources.''

After considering impacts to each resource area by alternative, DOE

has identified Alternative 3, Reduced Operations, as the

environmentally preferable alternative. Alternative 3 was identified as

having the fewest direct impacts to the physical environment and to

worker and public health and safety because all operations would be at

the lowest levels. However, the analyses indicate that there would be

very little difference in the environmental impacts among the

alternatives analyzed. The major discriminators among alternatives are

collective worker risks due to radiation exposure, socioeconomic

effects due to LANL employment changes, and electrical power demand.

Therefore, Reduced Operations would have the fewest impacts and

Expanded Operations would have the most.

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

DOE weighed environmental impacts as one factor in its decision

making. DOE analyzed the potential impacts that might occur to land

resources; geology, geological conditions, and soils; water resources,

air quality; ecological and biological resources, human health,

environmental justice, cultural resources; and socioeconomic,

infrastructure, and waste management for the four alternatives. DOE

considered the impacts that might occur from use of special nuclear

materials, facility accidents, and the transportation of radioactive

and other materials associated with LANL operations. DOE considered the

impacts of projects and activities associated with each alternative,

the irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources, and the

relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.

The highest resource impacts under any of the alternatives will be

to the electrical power infrastructure. Peak electrical demand under

the Reduced Operations Alternative exceeds supply during the winter

months and may result in periodic brownouts. Peak electrical demand

under the No Action, Expanded Operations, and Greener Alternatives

exceeds the power supply in both winter and summer, when this may

result in periodic brownouts. (Power supply to the Los Alamos area has

been a concern for a number of years, and DOE continues to work with

other users in the area and power suppliers to increase supply and

reduce use.)

Nonradioactive hazardous air pollutants would not be expected to

degrade air quality or affect human health under any of the

alternatives. The differences in activities among the alternatives do

not result in large differences in chemical usage. The activities at

LANL are such that large amounts of chemicals are not typically used in

any industrial process at LANL (compared to what may be used in

commercial manufacturing facilities); but research and development

activities involving many users dispersed throughout the site are the

norm. Air emissions are, therefore, not expected to change by a

magnitude that would, for example, trigger more stringent regulatory

requirements or warrant continuous monitoring. Radioactive air

emissions change slightly, but are within a narrow range due to the

controls placed on these types of emissions and the need to assure

compliance with regulatory standards. The collective population

radiation doses from these emissions range from about 11 person-rem per

year to 33 person-rem per year across the alternatives, and the

radiation dose to the maximally exposed individual ranges from 1.9

millirem per year to 5.4 millirem per year across the alternatives.

These doses were considered in the human health impact analysis.

The total radiological doses from normal operations over the next

10 years to the public under any of the alternatives are relatively

small and are not expected to result in any excess latent cancer

fatalities (LCFs) to members of the public. Additionally, exposure to

chemicals due to LANL operations under any of the alternatives is not

expected to result in significant effects to either workers or the

public. Exposure pathways associated with the traditional practices of

communities in LANL area (special pathways) would not be expected to

result in human health effects under any of the alternatives. The

annual collective radiation dose to workers at LANL ranges from 170

person-rem per year to 833 person-rem per year across the alternatives.

These dose levels would be expected to result in from 0.07 to 0.33

excess LCFs per year of operation, respectively, among the exposed

workforce. These impacts, in terms of excess LCFs per year of

operation, reflect the numbers of excess fatal cancers estimated to

occur among the exposed members of the work force over their lifetimes

per year of LANL operations. These impacts form an upper bound, and the

actual consequences could be less, but probably would not be worse.

Worker exposures to physical safety hazards are expected to result

in a range of 417 (Reduced Operations) to 507 (Expanded Operations)

reportable cases each year; typically, such cases would result in minor

or short-term effects to workers, but some of these incidents could

result in long-term health effects or even death.

LANL employment (including the University of California employees

and those of the two subcontractors with the largest employment among

LANL subcontractors) ranges from 9,347 (Reduced Operations) to 11,351

(Expanded Operations) full-time equivalents across the alternatives, as

compared to 9,375 LANL full-time equivalents in 1996. These changes in

employment would result in changes in regional population, employment,

personal income, and other socioeconomic measures. Under any of the

alternatives, these secondary effects would change existing conditions

in the region by less than 5 percent.

Water demand for LANL ranges from 602 million gallons (2,279

million liters) per year to 759 million gallons (2,873 million liters)

per year across the alternatives; the total water demand (including

LANL and the residences and other businesses and agencies in the area)

is within the existing DOE Rights to Water, and would result in average

drops of 10 to 15 feet (3.1 to 4.6 meters) in the water levels in DOE

well fields over the next 10 years. Usage, therefore, will remain

within a fairly tight range among the alternatives. The related aspect

of wastewater discharges is also within a narrow range for that reason.

Outfall flows range from 218 to 278 million gallons (825 to 1,052

million liters) per year across the alternatives, and these flows are

not expected to result in substantial changes to existing surface or

groundwater quantities. Outfall flows are not expected to result in

substantial surface contaminant transport under any of the

alternatives. However, since mechanisms for recharge to groundwater are

highly

[[Page 50800]]

uncertain, it is possible that discharges under any of the alternatives

could result in contaminant transport in groundwater and off the site,

particularly beneath Los Alamos Canyon and Sandia Canyon, which have

increased outfall flows. The outfall flows associated with the Expanded

Operations and Greener Alternatives reflect the largest potential for

such contaminant transport, and the flows associated with the Reduced

Operations Alternative have the least potential for such transport.

There is little difference in the impacts to geology, geological

conditions, and soils across the alternatives. Wastewater discharge

volumes with associated contaminants do change across the alternatives,

but not to a degree noticeable in terms of impacts (such as causing

soil erosion, for example). Under all of the alternatives, small

quantities (as compared to existing conditions) of contaminants would

be deposited in soils due to continued LANL operations, and the

Environmental Restoration Project would continue to remove existing

contaminants at sites to be remediated. Geological mapping and fault

trenching studies at LANL are currently under way or recently completed

to better define the rates of fault movements, specifically of the

Pajarito Fault, and the location and possible southern termination of

the Rendija Canyon Fault. Ongoing and recently completed seismic hazard

studies indicate that slip rates (recurrence intervals for earthquakes)

are within the parameters assumed in the 1995 seismic hazards study at

LANL.

There is little difference in the impacts to land resources between

the No Action, Reduced Operations, and the Greener Alternatives.

Differences among the alternatives are primarily associated with

operations in existing facilities, and very little new development is

planned. Therefore, these impacts are essentially the same as currently

experienced. The Expanded Operations Alternative has very similar land

resources impacts to those of the other three alternatives, with the

principal differences being attributable to the visual impacts of

lighting along the proposed transportation corridor between the

Plutonium Facility and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building

(this corridor will not be built under the Preferred Alternative) and

the noise and vibration associated with increased frequency of high

explosives testing (as compared to the other three alternatives).

No significant adverse impact to ecological and biological

resources is projected under any of the alternatives. The separate

analyses of impacts to air and water resources constitute some of the

source information for analysis of impacts in this area; as can be seen

from the above discussion, the variation across the alternatives is not

of a sufficient magnitude to cause large differences in effects. The

impacts of the Expanded Operations Alternative differ from those of the

other alternatives in that there is some projected loss of habitat;

however, this habitat loss is small (due to limited new construction)

compared to available similar habitat in the immediate vicinity.

DOE expects no environmental justice impacts from the operation of

LANL under any of the alternatives, i.e., projected impacts are not

disproportionately high for minority or low-income populations in the

area. DOE also analyzed human health impacts from exposure through

special pathways, including ingestion of game animals, fish, native

vegetation, surface waters, sediments, and local produce; absorption of

contaminants in sediments through the skin; and inhalation of plant

materials. The special pathways have the potential to be important to

the environmental justice analysis because some of these pathways may

be more important or viable for the traditional or cultural practices

of minority populations in the area. However, human health impacts

associated with these special pathways also will not present

disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income

populations.

Under all of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement

alternatives, there is a negligible to low potential for impacts to

archaeological and historic resources due to shrapnel and vibration

caused by explosives testing and contamination from emissions.

Potential impacts will vary in intensity in accordance with the

frequency of explosives tests and the operational levels that generate

emissions (e.g., Reduced Operations would reflect the lowest potential,

and Expanded Operations would reflect the highest potential). Recent

assessments of prehistoric resources indicate a low potential compared

to the effects of natural conditions (wind, rain, etc.). In addition to

these potential impacts, the Expanded Operations Alternative includes

the expansion of the low-level waste disposal site at Technical Area-

54, which contains several National Register of Historic Places sites;

if any significant cultural resources will be adversely effected by the

undertaking, DOE will consult with the New Mexico State Historic

Preservation Office and other consulting parties to resolve the adverse

effect.

The potential impacts to specific traditional cultural properties

would depend on their number, characteristics, and location. Such

resources could be adversely affected by changes in water quality and

quantity, erosion, shrapnel from explosives testing, noise and

vibration from explosives testing, and contamination from ongoing

operations. Such impacts would vary in intensity in accordance with the

frequency of explosive tests and the operational levels that generate

emissions. The current practice of consultation would continue to be

used to provide opportunities to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to

any traditional cultural properties located at LANL.

LANL chemical waste generation ranges from 3,173 to 3,582 tons

(2,878,000 to 3,249,300 kilograms) per year across the alternatives.

LANL low-level waste generation, including low-level mixed waste,

ranges from 338,210 to 456,530 cubic feet (9,581 to 12,837 cubic

meters) per year across the alternatives. LANL transuranic (TRU) waste

generation, including mixed TRU waste, ranges from 6,710 to 19,270

cubic feet (190 to 547 cubic meters) across the alternatives. Disposal

of these wastes at on-site or off-site locations is projected to

constitute a relatively small portion of the existing capacity for

disposal sites; disposal of all LANL low-level waste on the site would

require expansion of the low-level waste disposal capacity beyond the

existing footprint of Technical Area-54 Area G under all alternatives

(although this is only included in the analysis of the Expanded

Operations Alternative).

Radioactively contaminated space in LANL facilities would increase

by about 63,000 square feet (5,853 square meters) under the No Action,

Reduced Operations, and Greener Alternatives (due primarily to actions

previously reviewed under NEPA but not fully implemented at the time

the existing contaminated space estimate was established [May 1996]).

The Expanded Operations Alternative would increase contaminated space

in LANL facilities by about 73,000 square feet (6,782 square meters).

The creation of new contaminated space causes a clean-up burden in the

future, including the generation of radioactive waste for treatment and

disposal; the actual impacts of such clean-up actions are highly

uncertain because they are dependent on the actual characteristics of

the facilities, the technologies

[[Page 50801]]

available, and the applicable requirements at the time of the cleanup.

Incident-free transportation associated with LANL activities over

the next 10 years would be conservatively expected to cause radiation

doses that would result in about one excess latent cancer fatality to a

member of the public and two excess latent cancer fatalities to members

of LANL workforce over their lifetimes under each of the Site-Wide

Environmental Impact Statement alternatives. There is little variation

in impacts because effects are small, and the increased transport of

radioactive materials is not enough to make a significant change in

those small effects.

Transportation accidents without an associated cargo release over

the next 10 years of LANL operations are conservatively projected to

result in from 33 to 76 injuries and 3 to 8 fatalities (including

workers and the public) across the alternatives. The bounding off-site

and on-site transportation accidents over the next 10 years involving a

release of cargo would not be expected to result in any injuries or

fatalities to members of the public for any of the alternatives.

Accidents were analyzed by type of material, and the maximum quantities

were selected for analysis. These parameters do not change across the

alternatives. Total risk also does not change appreciably across the

alternatives because the frequency of shipments does not vary enough to

substantially influence the result.

The accident analyses (other than transportation and worker

physical safety incidents/accidents) considered a variety of initiators

(including natural and manmade phenomena), the range of activities at

LANL, and the range of radioactive and other hazardous materials at

LANL. Transportation accidents and the relatively frequent worker

physical safety incidents/accidents were considered separately. The

accidents discussed below are those that bound the accident risks at

LANL (other than transportation and physical safety incidents/

accidents).

The operational accident analysis included four scenarios that

would result in multiple source releases of hazardous materials: three

due to a site-wide earthquake and one due to a wildfire, resulting in

three different degrees of consequences and one wildfire scenario.

These four scenarios dominate the radiological risk due to accidents at

LANL because they involve radiological releases at multiple facilities

and are considered credible (that is, they would be expected to occur

more often than once in a million years), with the wildfire considered

likely. Another earthquake-initiated accident, labeled RAD-12, is

facility-specific (to Building Technical Area-16-411) and is dominated

by the site-wide earthquake accidents due to its very low frequency

(about 1.5 x 10 -6 per year). It is noteworthy that the

consequences of such earthquakes are dependent on the frequency of the

earthquake event, the facility design, and the amount of material that

could be released due to the earthquake; such features do not change

across the alternatives, so the impacts of these accidents are the same

for all four alternatives. The risks were estimated conservatively in

terms of both the frequency of the events and the consequences of such

events. (In particular, it is noteworthy that the analysis assumes that

any building that would sustain structural or systems damage in an

earthquake scenario does so in a manner that creates a path for release

of material outside of the building.) The total risk of an accident is

the product of the accident frequency and the consequences to the total

population within 50 miles (80 kilometers). This risk ranges from 0.046

(SITE-01, i.e., seismic event) and 0.034 (SITE-04, i.e., wildfire

event) excess latent cancer fatalities per year of operation, to

extremely small numbers for most of the radiological accidents. The

risk for release of chemicals, such as chlorine, is calculated

similarly as the product of the frequency and numbers of people exposed

to greater than the selected guideline concentration, Emergency

Response Planning Guideline (ERPG)-2. (ERPG-2 is the maximum airborne

concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals

could be exposed for up to 1 hour without irreversible or serious

health effects or symptoms that could impair their abilities to take

protective action). Under all alternatives, the risks for chemical

releases range from 6.4 (SITE-01) people exposed per year of operation

to extremely small numbers for some chemical releases. In general, such

earthquakes would be expected to cause fatalities due to falling

structures or equipment; this also would be true for LANL facilities.

Thus, worker fatalities due to the direct effects of the earthquakes

would be expected. Worker injuries or fatalities due to the release of

radioactive or other hazardous materials would be expected to be small

or modest increments to the injuries and fatalities due to the direct

effects of the earthquakes.

Comments on the Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement

DOE distributed approximately 500 copies of the final Site-Wide

Environmental Impact Statement to Congressional members and committees,

the State of New Mexico, various American Indian Tribal governments and

organizations, local governments, other Federal agencies, and the

general public. Comments were received from the U.S. Department of the

Interior (DOI) and Chestnut Law Offices, representing San Ildefonso

Pueblo. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not provide

comments on the final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement stating

in the Federal Register (64 FR 18901) that ``Review of the FEIS was not

deemed necessary. No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing

agency.''

DOI identified two areas of concern with the final Site-Wide

Environmental Impact Statement. The first concern is that the Site-Wide

Environmental Impact Statement does not adequately assess the direct,

indirect, and cumulative effects of programs and activities associated

with the continued operation of LANL either on or off the site. DOI

maintains that the existing impacts from the environmental baseline

should be quantified and not restricted to the evaluation of only two

site-specific projects. DOI further states that while programs and

activities that are proposed or under way may help to reduce adverse

impacts, these programs and activities were not adequately evaluated in

the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement.

Chapter 4 (Volume I) of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact

Statement presents the environmental setting and existing conditions

associated with LANL operations. The information presented in Chapter 4

forms a baseline for use in evaluating the environmental impacts of the

four Site-Wide alternatives. For all alternatives, assessment of

significance was accomplished both quantitatively where data and

analysis were available, and qualitatively. The assessment of the

potential effects, both positive and adverse, of the Expanded

Operations, Reduced Operations, Greener, and No Action Alternatives was

based on the degree of change from baseline conditions and was

presented in Chapter 5 (Volume I) of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact

Statement. DOE integrated many programs and activities, including the

Natural Resources Management Plan (see Mitigation Measures), that would

reduce adverse impacts in its analysis of environmental impacts.

DOI's second concern is threatened and endangered species

protection at LANL. DOI does not concur with DOE's determination that

implementation of

[[Page 50802]]

the Expanded Operation Alternative may affect but would not likely

adversely affect four listed species at LANL. The DOI believes that

measures necessary to reduce impacts to threatened and endangered

species that are identified through the consultation process should be

incorporated into the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement as

required measures.

On April 29, 1999, subsequent to DOI's submittal of comments on the

final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, DOE initiated formal

section 7 consultation between the DOI and DOE for DOE's proposal to

expand existing operations at LANL. DOE sees this consultation process

as an opportunity to further the stewardship of listed species provided

by the recently implemented Threatened and Endangered Species

Management Plan for LANL. Based on communications with the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, DOE anticipates that the Service will issue a

Biological Opinion in the near future. Upon its receipt DOE will

continue to coordinate with the Service the integration into the

operation of LANL of any needed measures recommended in the Biological

Opinion that will contribute to the welfare of listed species. DOE

believes that this process should proceed on a separate, parallel track

from that of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement process.

The Chestnut Law Offices, representing San Ildefonso Pueblo,

identified three issues of concern with the final Site-Wide

Environmental Impact Statement. First, Chestnut Law Offices states that

the environmental justice analysis is flawed because it divides San

Ildefonso Pueblo into several different segments thereby not indicating

any adverse impacts to the Pueblo. Chestnut Law Offices states that

most environmental risk is at the perimeter of the laboratory directly

affecting San Ildefonso Pueblo, and that the Site-Wide Environmental

Impact Statement determines there is no greater impact on the Pueblo

than on other disadvantaged communities. Chestnut Law Offices states

that this approach in environmental justice analysis does not comply

with Federal law and is inadequate.

DOE prepared the environmental justice analysis in accordance with

guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality and Executive Order

12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations. The segments referred to in the

comments were used to identify and highlight the locations of low-

income and/or minority populations for the impact analyses. Using this

tool, the San Ildefonso Pueblo was identified as housing minority and/

or low-income populations for consideration in the Environmental

Justice analysis. DOE has not identified any disproportionately high

and adverse human health or environmental impacts on minority or low-

income populations under any of the alternatives analyzed in the Site-

Wide Environmental Impact Statement. To the extent that there is a

potential for adverse impacts, DOE analysis has shown that most of the

impact would affect all populations equally. In the cases of air

emissions and on-site transportation, the residential populations

nearest to LANL, which have a relatively low percentage of minority and

low-income populations, would be affected to a greater extent than

other populations within the 50-mile radius.

The impacts addressed in the environmental justice analysis in the

Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement include land resources,

geology, soils, water resources, ecological resources, air quality,

human health, waste management, socioeconomic, and transportation. This

analysis includes the projected impacts due to contamination in the

area from past LANL activities. As part of its human health impact

analysis, DOE looked at potential exposure through special pathways,

including ingestion of game animals, fish, native vegetation, surface

waters, sediments, and local produce; absorption of contaminants in

sediments through the skin; and inhalation of plant materials. For

LANL, the special pathways influence the environmental justice analysis

because some of these pathways are more important or viable to the

traditional or cultural practices of minority populations in the area.

Even considering these special pathways, DOE did not find

disproportionately high and adverse health impacts to minority or low-

income populations.

The Chestnut Law Offices' second concern is groundwater

contamination due to LANL activities. The Chestnut Law Offices states

that the final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement does not

address the recent groundwater contamination but downplays it, and that

this section of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement should be

re-evaluated.

DOE believes that drinking water quality in the Los Alamos area

continues to meet all Federal and New Mexico chemical and radiological

standards. In February 1999 DOE discovered, as part of implementing the

Hydrogeologic Workplan (the multi-year effort to characterize the flow

and extent of contamination of the main aquifer), high explosives

contamination while drilling a well (R-25) in the western part of the

Laboratory. Based on current knowledge, DOE believes it will take at

least 50 years for these contaminants to reach the drinking water

production wells approximately three and a half miles to the East of R-

25. DOE has and will continue to sample the drinking water to ensure it

is safe. Groundwater monitoring data from implementation of the

Hydrogeologic Workplan is still under review and evaluation. As new

information becomes available, the LANL Environmental Surveillance and

Compliance Program will be revised to incorporate the additional data.

Chestnut Law Offices' third concern is that the Site-Wide

Environmental Impact Statement does not consider the shutdown of the

low-level waste disposal area, Area G, a reasonable alternative. The

commentor states the alternatives in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact

Statement are based on the assumption that LANL will be a regional low-

level waste disposal site. The commentor believes the Site-Wide

Environmental Impact Statement does not analyze the possibility that

another site may be chosen as the regional low-level waste disposal

site, thereby providing the opportunity for the waste to be removed

from Area G. The commentor states this is a serious flaw since it does

not anticipate a clearly reasonable alternative in light of existing

planning documents.

The shutdown of the low-level waste disposal area, Area G, was not

considered a reasonable alternative for analysis in the Site-Wide

Environmental Impact Statement because Area G has a unique capability

for the disposal of certain wastes generated by LANL. Such wastes

include classified wastes and other wastes that would be difficult to

transport to other sites. The Expanded Operations Alternative was the

only alternative that analyzed the impacts of LANL being chosen as a

regional low-level waste disposal site.

Under the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement, which evaluated locations for treatment and disposal of low-

level radioactive waste and mixed low-level radioactive waste, these

wastes would be treated on the site at LANL and disposed of at a

regional site to be determined after consultation with stakeholders.

One of the potential regional disposal sites for low-level waste is

LANL. Therefore, in the Expanded Operations Alternative, the Site-Wide

Environmental Impact

[[Page 50803]]

Statement addressed treatment and disposal of LANL-generated low-level

waste, as well as disposal of off-site generated low-level waste. The

Expanded Operations Alternative analyzes the environmental impacts and

the footprint needed at Area G to allow for the implementation of this

alternative.

If LANL is not selected as a regional disposal site, some low-level

waste could be sent off-site for disposal, as reflected in the No

Action, Reduced, and Greener Alternatives. The current low-level waste

capacity available at Area G is limited. If LANL were selected as a

regional disposal site, the expansion of Area G would occur at the

fastest rate. If LANL continues to dispose of its own wastes, the

expansion would still occur, but at a slower rate. Currently LANL

generates some low-level waste that, primarily because of its size and

shape, does not meet the acceptance criteria for disposal at other DOE

sites, such as the Nevada Test Site. However, the decision as to the

ultimate treatment and disposal of low-level waste and mixed low-level

waste will be made in a Record of Decision for the Waste Management

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

It should also be noted that the EPA, State of New Mexico, and

representatives of the Pueblos (four Accord Pueblos) near LANL were

invited to review and comment on the Classified Supplement for the

Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement (EPA declined the

invitation). Comments from that review were received shortly after the

final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement was issued. This final

Classified Supplement and all comments provided were considered in

reaching the decisions in this Record of Decision.

Other Decision Factors

As noted in the final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement,

LANL houses unique facilities and expertise that have been developed

over the past 50 years. These have served several National Security and

other national needs in the past. It is expected that, for the

foreseeable future, the U.S. will maintain a nuclear weapons stockpile

and require ``cutting edge'' science and manufacturing capabilities to

address issues of national importance for the maintenance of that

stockpile and for other purposes, including assuring the safety and

reliability of that stockpile. The unique facilities and expertise at

LANL are needed to assist in finding solutions to these issues. As

noted in the final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, LANL's

role in supporting DOE's missions has expanded as the DOE nuclear

weapons complex has been downsized over the last decade. Additionally,

it is expected that there will be continued emphasis on applying the

unique capabilities at LANL to support DOE's basic science mission and

to apply technologies developed in DOE laboratories to improve the U.S.

technological position and competitiveness. These factors were also

considered (in addition to the human health and environmental impact

information discussed above) in reaching this Record of Decision.

Decisions

DOE has decided to continue to operate LANL for the foreseeable

future and to expand the scope and level of its operations at LANL. DOE

is implementing the Preferred Alternative, that is Alternative 2,

Expanded Operations, but with pit production limited to a capacity that

can be accommodated within the limited space currently set aside for

this activity in the plutonium facility (estimated at nominally 20 pits

per year). This alternative reflects a broad expansion of science and

technology research, and applications of this research to a variety of

issues of national importance; this alternative also includes the

continued maintenance of existing and expanded capabilities, and

continued support/infrastructure activities. The following discussion

describes the major actions to be taken, with an emphasis on those

areas that have had the most extensive programmatic or public interest.

It should be noted that the decisions in this Record of Decision

will be reflected in DOE budget requests and management practices.

However, the actual implementation of these decisions is dependent on

DOE funding levels and allocations of DOE budget across competing

priorities.

Pit Production and Other Plutonium Operations

DOE remains committed to meeting pit production requirements to

support the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. As part of its

implementation of the Preferred Alternative, DOE will establish, over

time, a pit production capability at LANL with a capacity of nominally

20 pits per year; this decision reflects an intent to establish a pit

production capability at LANL within the existing floor space set aside

for this operation (about 11,400 ft \2\ [1060 m \2\]). This will

eliminate the need to transfer several Technical Area-55 plutonium

operations (to ``make room'' for pit production activities in Technical

Area-55) either to the CMR Building, or to newly constructed nuclear

space, as contemplated in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement.

Thus, the Preferred Alternative for Pit Production can be implemented

without an expansion of the plutonium operations floor space at LANL.

The exact production capacity of this floor space is not known with

certainty (pending process optimization studies), but has been

characterized as nominally 20 pits per year. This level provides

adequate capacity to meet the near-term pit production requirements to

maintain the enduring stockpile (about 20 pits per year), as expressed

in the Record of Decision for the Stockpile Stewardship and Management

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. While this does not change

the 50-pit-per-year mission assignment made in the Stockpile

Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Record of Decision, it does suspend full implementation of that

decision until an undetermined time in the future.

Implementation of the pit production mission at LANL will be

phased. The first pit for delivery to the U.S. nuclear weapons

stockpile will be made in 2001. It is expected that, through equipment

installation in existing facilities, the limited production capacity of

nominally 20 pits per year will be achieved in 2007. At these levels of

production, there is no need to move plutonium operations from the

Plutonium Facility, Technical Area-55, to the CMR Building, and there

is no need to construct a corridor between Technical Area-55 and

Technical Area-3. Thus, DOE has decided not to move these operations or

construct the road at this time.

Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building--As the Site-Wide

Environmental Impact Statement was being prepared, DOE was working on

two sets of information associated with CMR operations: (1)

Establishment of a modern authorization basis for these operations

(referred to as the CMR Basis for Interim Operations, or BIO); and, (2)

studies of the seismicity of the Technical Area-55 and Technical Area-3

areas. Both sets of information are included in the impact analyses in

the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement (where details were not

known, the analyses in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement

were, in fact, bounding of the details determined through these

efforts). Through this effort, it became apparent that the subprojects

included in the CMR Upgrades Construction Project should be

reprioritized and oriented to provide for the continued safe operation

[[Page 50804]]

of the CMR Building through about 2010. The single most substantive

change in this project was to replace the proposed seismic upgrades

with a combination of material containerization, a reduction in the

amount of Material at Risk (or MAR, which is the amount of in-process

material that would be subject to release if there were a catastrophic

accident), and a substantial reduction in the amount of combustible

material allowed in the CMR Building. With these controls in place, the

worst-case plausible accidents involving the CMR Building would have

minimal effects on public health (effects would be within applicable

guidelines intended to protect human health).

The 1996 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement analyzed the environmental impacts of

locating a pit manufacturing capability at either LANL or the Savannah

River Site. In December 1996, DOE issued a Record of Decision

reestablishing the pit manufacturing mission at LANL. In August 1998,

the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, while ruling in

DOE's favor in litigation challenging the adequacy of the Stockpile

Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,

directed DOE to take another look at certain new studies regarding

seismic hazards at LANL, and to provide a factual report and technical

analysis of the plausibility of a building-wide fire at LANL's

plutonium facility (PF-4 at Technical Area-55). The Court directed that

DOE prepare a Supplement Analysis, pursuant to DOE's NEPA regulations

(10 CFR 1021.314(c)), to help determine whether a supplemental

Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement should be issued to address these studies. These seismic

studies have been released to the public and are examined in more

detail in the draft Supplement Analysis released for public review and

comment on July 1, 1999. On September 2, 1999, DOE issued a final

Supplement Analysis and determined that none of the issues analyzed in

the Supplement Analysis represents substantial changes to the actions

considered in the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement, nor do those issues provide significant

new information relevant to the environmental concerns discussed in

that Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore no

supplement to that Programmatic Environmental Statement is required.

Secondaries

While LANL was considered as a production site for secondaries

(components of a nuclear weapon that contains elements needed to

initiate the fusion reaction in a thermonuclear reaction) in the

Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement, this mission was assigned to the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge,

Tennessee. However, DOE expects LANL to maintain an understanding of

secondary production technologies, as well as the characteristics of

War Reserve secondaries in the stockpile.

Tritium

LANL will continue to support both research and development and

production activities involving tritium (neutron tube target loading

for nuclear weapons stockpile components). These will include

development of new reservoirs and reservoir fill operations,

surveillance and performance testing on tritium components, tritium

recovery and purification technologies, and production operations

associated with neutron generator production for the stockpile. The

expansion of these activities results in: (1) tritium throughputs on an

annual basis increase by a factor of up to 2.5; and (2) the on-site

inventory of tritium increases by a factor of 10.

High Explosives Processing and Testing

Operations in this area will increase such that annual explosives

throughput will increase to about 82,700 pounds, and the annual mock

explosives throughput will increase to about 2,910. These quantities

include continued research, development, and fabrication of high-power

detonators, including support of up to 40 major product lines per year

in support of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management program. In

addition, the number of hydrodynamic tests will increase to about 100

per year; the annual amount of depleted uranium will increase to about

6,900 pounds.

Accelerator Operations

DOE will implement several facility construction or modification

projects at Technical Area-53: the Long-Pulse Spallation Source, the 5-

Megawatt Target/Blanket Experimental Area, the Dynamic Experiment

Laboratory, and the Isotope Production Facility.

Expansion of Technical Area-54/Area G Low-Level Waste Disposal Area

As part of the implementation of the Preferred Alternative, DOE

will continue the on-site disposal of LANL generated low-level waste

using the existing footprint at Area G low-level waste disposal area

and will expand disposal capacity into Zones 4 and 6 at Area G (this

expansion would cover up to 72 acres [29 hectares]). DOE will develop

both Zones 4 and 6 in a step-wise fashion, expanding these areas as

demand requires.

Mitigation Measures

The Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement included a discussion

of existing programs and plans and controls built into the operations

at LANL, including operating within applicable regulations, DOE Orders,

contractual requirements and approved policies and procedures. The

following discussion outlines the mitigation measures that DOE will

undertake to reduce the impacts of continuing to operate LANL at the

levels outlined in this Record of Decision.

Electrical Power

The Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement recognizes the need

for an increase in electrical power supply and reliability under the

Preferred Alternative as well as other alternatives analyzed. The

impact analyses emphasize the severity of these issues and consequences

if they are not resolved, e.g., brownouts. Solutions to power supply

issues are essential to mitigate the effects of power demand under all

alternatives. An operating plan for improved load monitoring, equipment

upgrades, and optimization of some available power sources was

discussed. Additional measures under consideration by DOE include: (1)

Limiting operation of large users of electricity to periods of low

demand, and contractual mechanisms to bring additional electric power

to the region and some form of on-site cogeneration as an incremental

resource. DOE and other users of electrical power in the area have been

working with suppliers to resolve these foreseeable power and

reliability issues. One solution under consideration for improved

reliability is the provision of a third power line from the existing

Public Service Company of New Mexico Norton substation to the existing

LANL substations. This solution could include a new LANL substation. In

any case, DOE is committed to manage electric power demands to prevent

periods of brownouts by adjusting to the limitations of available power

until a solution for a long-term increase in power is in place. DOE is

also committed to approve and begin implementing a Utility Procurement

Plan by November 1999.

[[Page 50805]]

Water Supply and Demand

Prior to September 8, 1998, DOE supplied all potable water for

LANL, Bandelier National Monument, and Los Alamos County, including the

towns of Los Alamos and White Rock. This water was derived from DOE's

groundwater right to withdraw 5,541.3 acre-feet or about 1,806 million

gallons of water per year from the main aquifer. On this date, DOE

leased these rights to the County of Los Alamos. This lease also

included DOE's contracted annual right obtained in 1976 to 1,200 acre-

feet of San Juan-Chama Transmountain Diversion Project water. This

lease agreement is effective for three years, at which point DOE

expects to convey 70 percent of the water right to the County of Los

Alamos and lease the remaining 30 percent to them. The San Juan-Chama

rights will be transferred in their entirety to the County. On several

occasions since 1986 through 1998, LANL operations have exceeded 30

percent of the total DOE annual water right. The agreement between DOE

and the County does not preclude provision of additional waters in

excess of the 30 percent agreement, if available. However, the

agreement also states that should the County be unable to provide water

to its customers, the County shall be entitled to reduce water services

to DOE in an amount equal to the water rights deficit.

DOE is committed to managing water demand to prevent exceedances of

DOE water rights. LANL will develop and implement by June 2000

procedures to assure that all new projects will implement water

conservation design and techniques. LANL will also develop water

conservation goals and begin implementing them by October 2001.

Waste Management

DOE is committed to the proper management and minimization of all

wastes. LANL will integrate waste minimization into Integrated Safety

Management by October 2000. By June 2000 LANL will develop and

implement procedures to assure that all new projects will implement

waste minimization for TRU and mixed TRU waste streams. In addition

LANL will reduce by December 2005 waste from routine operations by 80%

using 1993 as a baseline for hazardous, low-level radioactive, and

mixed low-level radioactive wastes. Also, LANL will recycle 40% of

sanitary waste from routine operations by December 2005.

LANL will also purchase EPA-designated items with recycled content

according to the conditions of Executive Order 12873. A LANL

Implementing Requirement for waste minimization activities is currently

in draft.

Wildfire

The final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement included an

accident scenario from a wildfire that was initiated on land adjacent

to LANL and spread to the LANL site. The analysis concluded that a

major fire is not only credible but also likely. The current and future

risks of wildfires at LANL can only be mitigated through purposeful

environmental intervention and active land management. LANL will

develop by December 1999 a preliminary program plan for comprehensive

wildfire mitigation, including construction and maintenance of

strategic fire roads and fire breaks, creation of defensible space

surrounding key facilities, and active forest management to reduce fuel

loadings. LANL will prepare and begin implementation of a long-term

strategy for wildfire mitigation actions before the start of the 2000

fire season.

Cultural Resources

DOE is committed through ongoing consultation processes with

affected Native American tribes to ensure protection of cultural

resources and sites of cultural, historic, or religious importance to

the tribes. With input from the tribes participating in the Los Alamos

Pueblos Project (LAPP), DOE will develop a strategy to increase the

understanding of traditional cultural properties at LANL, to determine

strategies for the long-term management of identified traditional

cultural properties and sacred sites and to determine appropriate

mitigation measures for specific traditional cultural properties. The

strategies could include the development of access agreements to

traditional cultural properties and sacred sites. In the past, attempts

to identify specific traditional cultural properties at LANL have

encountered concerns from traditional groups because of the potential

for increased risk to these resources if they are individually

identified; thus, DOE will explore the potential benefits and risks of

such a study, and options to such a study, with the LAPP tribes. This

approach is intended to ensure appropriate respect and consideration

regarding cultural concerns, while attempting to provide the

information and ability to mitigate or avoid potential impacts to

traditional cultural properties (which are currently not specifically

known, to a large extent). The goal of the consultation and

coordination would be an agreement with the relevant Native American

tribes for the management of these resources.

DOE will complete an Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan

(ICRMP) by April 2002. The ICRMP will detail how LANL will manage,

preserve, and protect cultural resources within the scope of Federal

and State laws, regulations, Executive Orders, standards, as well as to

the extent practicable, follow Tribal criteria and guidelines. The

ICRMP will provide a basis for a unified approach to address the

multiplicity of cultural resources located on LANL lands. The plan will

serve to streamline many of the administrative steps required by

Federal and State laws and regulations. The scope of activities for the

ICRMP would include development of the plan, completion of surveys of

archeological resources and historic buildings, and implementation of

long-term monitoring.

Natural Resources

DOE will develop and begin implementation of an integrated Natural

Resources Management Plan (NRMP) by October 2002, which will integrate

the principles of ecosystem management into the critical missions of

LANL to conserve ecosystem processes and biodiversity. The NRMP will

support DOE's policy to manage all of its land and facilities as

valuable national resources. This stewardship will integrate LANL's

mission and operations with its biological, water, soil, and air

resources in a comprehensive plan that will guide land and facility use

decisions. The plan will consider the site's larger regional context

and be developed in consultation with regional land managing agencies

and owners (particularly Bandelier National Monument, Santa Fe National

Forest, and Native American Pueblos), State agencies, and the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. This cooperative effort will ensure a consistent,

integrated, and structured approach to regional natural resource

management.

The NRMP is viewed as a sequenced planning document that will

include specific tasks and studies as part of the process of

development. It will include new initiatives as well as integrating

ongoing programs, plans, and activities at LANL, some of which may be

reassessed to ensure their contribution to the goals and objectives of

integrated ecosystem management.

Mitigation Action Plan

In accordance with 10 CFR 1021.331, DOE is preparing a Mitigation

Action Plan that will identify specific actions

[[Page 50806]]

needed to implement these mitigation measures and provide schedules for

completion. These mitigation measures represent all practicable means

to avoid or minimize harm from the alternative selected.

Conclusion

DOE has considered environmental impacts, stakeholder concerns, and

National policy in its decisions regarding the management and use of

LANL. The analysis contained in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact

Statement is both programmatic and site specific in detail. It is

programmatic from the broad multi-use facility management perspective

and site specific in the detailed project and program activity

analysis. The impacts identified in the Site-Wide Environmental Impact

Statement were based on conservative estimates and assumptions. In this

regard, the analyses bound the impacts of the alternatives evaluated in

the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement. The Expanded Operations

Alternative was defined to include activities to implement the

programmatic decisions made or that may be made as a result of other

DOE Environmental Impact Statements (some of which are currently in

progress). This Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement and the

analyses it contains can be used to support these future programmatic

or project decisions.

In accordance with the provisions of NEPA, its implementing

procedures and regulations, and DOE's NEPA regulations, I have

considered the information contained within the Site-Wide Environmental

Impact Statement, including the classified supplement and public

comments received in response to the final Site-Wide Environmental

Impact Statement. Being fully apprised of the environmental

consequences of the alternatives and other decision factors described

above, I have decided to continue and expand the use of LANL and its

resources as described. This will enhance DOE's ability to meet its

primary National security mission responsibility and create an

environment that fosters technological innovation in both the public

and private sectors.

Issued at Washington, DC, September 13, 1999.

Thomas F. Gioconda,

Brigadier General, USAF, Acting Assistant Secretary for Defense

Programs.

[FR Doc. 99-24456 Filed 9-17-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P