Amended Record of Decision for the Nuclear Facility Portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 64344-64348 [2011-26881]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
64344
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2011 / Notices
December 1, 2011, 1 p.m.–4 p.m.,
Local Time.
The above-referenced meetings will
be held at: DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel,
5400 Computer Drive, Westborough,
Massachusetts 01581.
The above-referenced meetings are
open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at
https://www.iso-ne.com.
The discussions at the meetings
described above may address matters at
issue in the following proceedings:
Docket No. ER11–4021, ISO New
England Inc., Northeast Utilities Service
Company.
Docket No. ER11–4022, ISO New
England Inc., Northeast Utilities Service
Company.
Docket No. ER11–4023, ISO New
England Inc., Northeast Utilities Service
Company.
Docket No. ER11–49, National Grid
Transmission Services Corporation.
For more information, contact
William Lohrman, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at (202) 502–
8070 or william.lohrman@ferc.gov.
Dated: October 11, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011–26845 Filed 10–17–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security
Administration
Amended Record of Decision for the
Nuclear Facility Portion of the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Building Replacement Project at Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Los
Alamos, NM
National Nuclear Security
Administration, U.S. Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Amended Record of Decision.
AGENCY:
The National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) of the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is
issuing this Amended Record of
Decision (AROD) for the Nuclear
Facility portion of the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Building
Replacement (CMRR) Project at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in
Los Alamos, New Mexico. After
completing an EIS, NNSA issued a ROD
for the CMRR Project on February 3,
2004, deciding to construct a twobuilding, partially above-ground, CMRR
Facility in Technical Area-55 (TA–55) at
LANL. This new facility would replace
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:46 Oct 17, 2011
Jkt 226001
the aging 60-year-old Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research (CMR) Building at
LANL, and would ensure the ability to
continue to perform analytical
chemistry and materials
characterization operations using
plutonium and other actinides in a safe,
secure manner in support of NNSA
mission activities. As the CMRR Project
planning and design process has
progressed over the past 8 years, the
first building of the two-building CMRR
Facility (the Radiological Laboratory/
Utility/Office Building, also known as
the RLUOB) has been constructed.
During this same time period, primarily
as a result of efforts to better understand
the seismic environment at the selected
construction site in TA–55, several
design considerations and ancillary
support requirements were identified
for the CMRR Nuclear Facility (CMRR–
NF) that had not been anticipated in
2003. These design considerations and
additional ancillary support
requirements were not analyzed in the
2003 CMRR EIS. To address this new
information, NNSA recently completed
a supplemental environmental impact
statement, Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the
Nuclear Facility Portion of the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Building Replacement Project at Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Los
Alamos, New Mexico (the CMRR–NF
SEIS). The CMRR–NF SEIS analyzes the
potential environmental impacts of
proposed construction changes to the
CMRR–NF to address site seismic and
safety considerations, as well as newly
identified ancillary construction
support requirements, such as
additional equipment storage areas, soil
storage areas, additional transportation
needs, and worker parking areas under
the Modified CMRR–NF Alternative and
compares these impacts to those
identified for the construction project
selected in the 2004 ROD (No Action
Alternative) and for continued operation
of the existing CMR facility. NNSA has
considered this analysis as well as
comments submitted by the public on
the Draft and Final CMRR–NF SEIS and
has decided to select the Modified
CMRR–NF Alternative for constructing
and operating the CMRR–NF portion of
the CMRR Project. NNSA will select the
appropriate Excavation Option (Shallow
or Deep) for implementing the
construction of this building after
initiating final design activities, when
additional geotechnical and structural
design calculations and more detailed
engineering analysis will be performed
to support completing the facility
design.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
For
further information about the CMRR–NF
SEIS or this CMRR–NF AROD, or to
receive copies of the CMRR–NF SEIS,
contact: Mr. George J. Rael, Assistant
Manager Environmental Operations,
NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy, National Nuclear
Security Administration, Los Alamos
Site Office, 3747 West Jemez Road, Los
Alamos, NM 87544. Mr. Rael may be
contacted by telephone at 505–606–
0397, or via e-mail at:
NEPALASO@doeal.gov. The CMRR–NF
SEIS is posted at https://
www.nnsa.energy.gov/nepa and also at
https://www.energy.gov/nepa/
downloads/eis-0350-s1-finalsupplemental-environmental-impactstatement. For information on the DOE
NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol M.
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA
Policy and Compliance (GC–54), U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–4600,
or leave a message at (800) 472–2756.
Additional information regarding DOE
NEPA activities and access to many
DOE NEPA documents are available on
the Internet through the DOE NEPA
Web site at: https://www.energy.gov/
nepa.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
LANL is a multidisciplinary,
multipurpose research institution in
north-central New Mexico, about 60
miles (97 kilometers) north-northeast of
Albuquerque, and about 25 miles (40
kilometers) northwest of Santa Fe. Since
the early 1950s, analytical chemistry
(AC) and materials characterization
(MC) work has been performed in the
CMR Building at LANL. The CMR
Building provides essential support for
various national security missions,
including nuclear nonproliferation
programs; the manufacturing,
development, and surveillance of pits
(the fissile core of a nuclear warhead);
life extension programs; dismantlement
efforts; waste management; material
recycle and recovery; and research. The
CMR Building is almost 60 years old
and near the end of its useful life. Many
of its utility systems and structural
components are aged, outmoded, and
deteriorated. In the 1990s, geological
studies identified a seismic fault trace
located beneath two of the wings of the
CMR Building, which raised concerns
about the structural integrity of the
facility. Over the long term, NNSA
cannot continue to operate the missioncritical AC and MC capabilities in the
existing CMR Building at an acceptable
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
level of risk to worker safety and health.
NNSA has already taken steps to
minimize the risks associated with
continued operations at the CMR
Building.
To ensure that NNSA can fulfill its
national security mission for the next 50
years in a safe, secure, and
environmentally sound manner, NNSA
proposed in 2002 to construct a CMR
replacement facility, and this became
the subject of the 2003 Environmental
Impact Statement for the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Building
Replacement Project, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico (DOE/EIS–0350, CMRR EIS) and
the subsequent 2004 ROD (69 FR 6967).
Since the issuance of the 2004 ROD,
new information on the seismic
environment at Los Alamos, as well as
revisions to safety system requirements,
have become available, indicating that
changes to the design of the CMRR–NF
are appropriate. The need for additional
construction support activities and
ancillary construction work spaces has
also been identified. These changes
resulted in NNSA’s decision to prepare
a supplement to the 2003 CMRR EIS, the
CMRR–NF SEIS, pursuant to the
regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) for
implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts
1500–1508) and DOE’s NEPA
Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part
1021). Decisions in this AROD are based
in part on information and analyses
contained in the CMRR–NF SEIS, DOE/
EIS–0350–S1.
NEPA Process for the CMRR–NF SEIS
NNSA started the process for
preparing the CMRR–NF SEIS by
publishing in the Federal Register a
Notice of Intent to prepare the CMRR–
NF SEIS, inviting the public to
participate in a scoping process to help
shape NNSA’s supplemental analysis
(75 FR 60745, October 1, 2010). The
public scoping period extended from
October 1 through November 16, 2010.
In preparing the Draft CMRR–NF SEIS,
NNSA considered all scoping comments
received during the scoping period. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and NNSA simultaneously published
Notices of Availability for the Draft
CMRR–NF SEIS in the Federal Register
on April 29, 2011 (76 FR 24021 and 76
FR 24018, respectively). These notices
invited public comment on the Draft
CMRR–NF SEIS from April 29 through
June 13, 2011. NNSA later published
another notice in the Federal Register
on May 16, 2011, extending the public
comment period through June 28, 2011
(76 FR 28222), for a total comment
period of 60 days. Four public hearings
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:46 Oct 17, 2011
Jkt 226001
on the Draft CMRR–NF SEIS were held
˜
in Los Alamos, Espanola, Santa Fe, and
Albuquerque, New Mexico, from May
23 through May 26, 2011. NNSA issued
the Final CMRR–NF SEIS on August 26,
2011, and the EPA published a Notice
of Availability for the Final CMRR–NF
SEIS on September 2, 2011 (76 FR
54768).
Alternatives Considered
In the CMRR–NF SEIS, NNSA
analyzed the potential environmental
impacts associated with three
alternatives for the CMRR–NF: (1) The
No Action Alternative, (2) the Modified
CMRR–NF Alternative, and (3) the
Continued Use of CMR Building
Alternative.
The No Action Alternative (2004
CMRR–NF) analyzed in the CMRR–NF
SEIS consists of continuing to
implement earlier NNSA decisions
issued in the 2004 ROD based on the
2003 CMRR EIS and modified by
subsequent NEPA decisions related to
site infrastructure. NNSA determined
that the building, as conceived in 2003,
would not sufficiently meet subsequent
safety and seismic requirements to
allow the full suite of NNSA missionassigned work to be conducted.
Two action alternatives were analyzed
in the CMRR–NF SEIS: the Modified
CMRR–NF Alternative, and the
Continued Use of CMR Building
Alternative. The Modified CMRR–NF
Alternative consists of constructing and
operating a new CMRR–NF at TA–55
adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design
and construction modifications and
additional support activities that
address seismic safety, infrastructure
enhancements, nuclear-safety-basis
requirements, and sustainable design
principles. Two construction options
were considered under this alternative:
the Deep Excavation Option and the
Shallow Excavation Option. All
necessary AC and MC activities could
be performed within the modified
CMRR–NF to support the full suite of
NNSA mission work. The Continued
Use of CMR Building Alternative would
consist of continuing to perform a
restricted suite of operations in the
existing CMR Building with normal
maintenance and component
replacements at the level needed to
sustain programmatic operations for as
long as feasible. Administrative and
radiological laboratory operations
would be conducted in RLUOB at TA–
55, and no construction activities would
be associated with this alternative.
Preferred Alternative
As discussed in Volume I, Chapter 2,
Section 2.9 of the CMRR–NF SEIS,
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64345
NNSA identified the Modified CMRR–
NF Alternative as its preferred
alternative in both the Draft and the
Final versions of the document.
However, NNSA did not identify a
preferred construction option in the
CMRR–NF SEIS.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
Considering the long-term need to
maintain its capability to conduct AC
and MC operations at LANL, NNSA
believes that the Modified CMRR–NF
Alternative is the environmentally
preferable alternative for meeting its full
suite of mission work requirements.
Replacing the aging CMR Building with
a new facility that incorporates modern
safety, security, and efficiency standards
would improve NNSA’s ability to
protect human health and the
environment both during normal
operations and in the event of an
accident or natural phenomena event,
such as a wildfire or earthquake.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
NNSA analyzed the potential impacts
of each alternative on: Land use and
visual resources; site infrastructure; air
quality (including greenhouse gases);
noise; geology and soils; surface and
groundwater quality; ecological
resources; cultural and paleontological
resources; socioeconomics;
environmental justice; human health;
waste management and pollution
prevention; transportation; traffic; and
cumulative impacts. NNSA also
evaluated the potential impacts of each
alternative associated with the
irreversible or irretrievable
commitments of resources, and the
relationship between short-term uses of
the environment and the maintenance
and enhancement of long-term
productivity. In addition, NNSA
evaluated impacts of potential
accidents, including those tied to
seismic risk, on workers and
surrounding populations. These
analyses and results are described in
Volume I, Chapter 4 of the CMRR–NF
SEIS. The CMRR–NF SEIS includes a
classified appendix that analyzes the
potential environmental impacts of
intentional destructive acts (credible
terrorist scenarios) that might occur at
the CMRR–NF.
Comments on the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
Following publication of the Final
CMRR–NF SEIS in August 2011, and
prior to issuing this AROD, NNSA
received 7 comment documents. The
appendix to this AROD contains a
summary of these comments and
provides NNSA’s responses for those
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
64346
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2011 / Notices
cases where in NNSA’s view the
comment documents introduce new
concerns/issues that were not addressed
in the Final SEIS. NNSA has concluded
that none of the comments received
necessitate further NEPA analysis.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Decisions
NNSA’s decisions are based on its
mission responsibilities and its need to
sustain AC and MC work at LANL in a
manner that allows it to fulfill these
responsibilities in a safe and
environmentally conscientious manner.
The CMRR–NF would provide vitally
essential technical support capabilities
to NNSA’s national security missions,
which include maintaining the nation’s
nuclear weapons stockpile and
nonproliferation programs. NNSA has
decided to select the Modified CMRR–
NF Alternative to continue AC and MC
operations at LANL as described in
Volume I, Chapter 2, Sections 2.3 and
2.4 of the CMRR–NF SEIS. NNSA will
also initiate the facility disposition of
the existing CMR Building and the
CMRR–NF as operations cease in those
structures. The benefits of implementing
the Modified CMRR–NF Alternative
include reliable, long-term, consolidated
plutonium research and storage
capabilities for the nuclear security
enterprise with modern technologies
and facilities; improved health and
safety for workers and the public;
improved operational efficiency; and
reductions in the long-term cost of
operating and maintaining the facility.
Additional Background and Summary
of the NEPA Comparison of Excavation
Options
When the probabilistic seismic
hazards analysis was prepared in 2007
(LA–UR–07–3965), the CMRR Project
team proposed and investigated
changing the design for the CMRR–NF
that had been selected in the 2004 ROD
to increase the thickness in certain
floors, the height between floors to
provide access, and the thickness of the
basemat to improve performance in a
seismic event. With these changes, the
overall building, measured from the
bottom of the basemat to the top of the
roof, would have been higher. The
design was further revised to maintain
the above-ground height of the building
by providing a deeper building
excavation. This design change resulted
in the Deep Excavation Option. The
Deep Excavation Option would entail
excavating through the layer of poorly
welded tuff at the construction site and
filling the hole with low-slump concrete
to the elevation of the bottom of the
basemat, as discussed in Volume I,
Chapter 2, Section 2.6.2 of the SEIS. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:46 Oct 17, 2011
Jkt 226001
environmental impacts associated with
these activities are discussed in Volume
I, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.
Scoping comments for the CMRR–NF
SEIS requested that NNSA look for and
analyze alternative design/construction
options for the CMRR–NF, including
those which might reduce cost and
environmental impact by avoiding the
need for a deep excavation. Consistent
with the rationale in this request, NNSA
performed a review of the requirements
for the design of the CMRR–NF, which
identified an opportunity to avoid the
activities and costs associated with the
additional excavation and concrete fill
required for the Deep Excavation Option
by raising the bottom of the basemat to
near the original design elevation.
Following this review, NNSA began
analyzing this additional option for
inclusion in the Draft SEIS. Under this
design/construction option for the
CMRR–NF, which came to be known as
the Shallow Excavation Option, the
overall building height (bottom of
basemat to top of roof) would remain
the same, but the top of the roof would
be higher aboveground than it was in
the conceptual and preliminary design.
Geotechnical reviews performed for this
Shallow Excavation Option concluded
that the substrate is sufficiently strong
to withstand the weight of the proposed
CMRR–NF, such that intolerable
amounts of seismically- and nonseismically-induced settlement and
lateral shifting of the foundation would
not occur. The allowable bearing
pressure of the soil is much greater than
the pressure caused by the buildings.
Both the Deep and the Shallow
Excavation options require the same sets
of safety controls and the SEIS analysis
indicates that they are expected to result
in similar offsite environmental
consequences. However, the Shallow
Excavation Option reduces risk and
provides some reductions in
construction impacts and cost without
affecting other building design
requirements. Risk reduction would be
realized by a decrease in: excavating,
hauling, and storing soil (approximately
9,000 fewer truck trips depending on
hauling capacity and 309,000 fewer
cubic yards of soil excavated); scope of
geotechnical monitoring; extent of slope
stabilization; and safety precautions for
working in a deep hole. Reductions in
construction impacts would include a
reduced project footprint for excavated
spoils storage (20 fewer acres); fewer
truck trips on- and off-site from LANL;
fewer materials procured (a savings of
250,000 cubic yards of concrete); and
reduced water use (8 million fewer
gallons over the course of construction).
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NNSA will begin the implementation
of its decision to select the Modified
CMRR–NF Alternative for constructing
and operating the CMRR–NF portion of
the CMRR Facility Project by
conducting additional detailed design
and analysis activities. Continuing
forward into final design is expected to
result in additional refinement of the
information available to NNSA for
making its selection of the construction
option to be implemented. NNSA will
select the appropriate Excavation
Option for implementing the
construction of this building after
initiating final design activities when
additional geotechnical and structural
design calculations and more-detailed
design engineering analysis will be
conducted. In making its selection,
NNSA will consider the data it obtains
from these studies and analysis, the
moderate distinctions in environmental
impacts between the two excavation
options, and other relevant factors such
as additional evaluation of security
features and more-detailed cost
estimates.
Mitigation Measures
All practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm have
been and will continue to be adopted
and employed in the design,
construction, and operation of the
CMRR–NF. CMRR–NF construction
activities will follow standard practices
required by federal and state licensing
and permitting requirements for
minimizing construction impacts on air
and surface-water quality, noise,
operational and public health and
safety, and accident prevention. As
described in Volume I, Chapter 5 of the
CMRR–NF SEIS, NNSA and LANL
operate pursuant to a number of
environmental laws and regulations, as
well as several other controls, including
DOE Orders, policies and contractual
requirements. Many of these mandate
actions that would mitigate potential
adverse environmental impacts related
to the construction and subsequent
operation of the CMRR–NF. Based on
consideration of these mandated
mitigation actions, and the analyses of
the environmental consequences
provided in the CMRR–NF SEIS for this
action, no additional mitigation
measures would be necessary for many
resource areas because the potential
environmental impacts are expected to
be well below acceptable levels set in
promulgated standards.
A summary of all prior mitigation
commitments for LANL that are either
underway or to be initiated are included
in the over-arching LANL SWEIS
Mitigation Action Plan (SWEIS MAP).
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2011 / Notices
Prior SWEIS MAP commitments include
such actions as continued forest
management efforts, trail management
efforts, and implementation of a variety
of site sampling and monitoring
measures, as well as measures to reduce
potable water use and implement
resource conservation initiatives. A
Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) for the
CMRR–NF SEIS ROD will be issued by
NNSA and made available at https://
www.doeal.gov/laso/
NEPADocuments.aspx. This MAP will
include specific requirements for:
potable water usage reduction measures;
traffic flow improvements; and
measures to meet electric power peak
capacity demands. Starting in 2012,
these new mitigation measures specific
to the CMRR–NF project will be
incorporated into the overall LANL
SWEIS MAP. Reporting will be
consolidated into subsequent MAP
Annual Reports issued by NNSA and
made publicly available at: https://
www.lanl.gov/environment/nepa/
sweis.shtml.
In addition, NNSA will continue its
on-going efforts to support the local
Pueblos and other tribal entities in
matters of human health, and will
participate in various intergovernmental
efforts to protect indigenous practices
and locations of concern. NNSA will
continue to conduct government-togovernment consultations with the
Pueblos and other tribal entities to
incorporate these matters into the
SWEIS MAP, as deemed appropriate.
Issued at Washington, DC, this 12th day of
October, 2011.
Thomas P. D’Agostino,
Administrator, National Nuclear Security
Administration.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Appendix to the CMRR–NF Amended
ROD
Following publication of the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for the Nuclear Facility
Portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research Building Replacement Project
at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los
Alamos New Mexico, DOE/EIS–0350–S1
(Final CMRR–NF SEIS) in August 2011,
and prior to issuing of this Amended
Record of Decision (AROD), the
National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) received seven
comment documents related to the Final
CMRR–NF SEIS. Having reviewed and
fully considered the comments received
in the comment documents, NNSA has
determined that these comments do not
provide information that affects the
analysis in the Final CMRR–NF SEIS.
NNSA has further determined that
many of the issues in these comment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:46 Oct 17, 2011
Jkt 226001
documents are either similar, or in some
cases identical to, comments that were
submitted on the Draft CMRR–NF SEIS
which were addressed by NNSA in the
Final CMRR–NF SEIS comment
response document (Volume II of the
FSEIS). These include comments related
to NNSA’s implementation of the NEPA
process; the requirements for a
supplemental environmental impact
statement; the purpose and need for
action; the range of alternatives
evaluated; radioactive contaminants in
the environment; consideration of
geologic and seismic risks at LANL in
facility design; hazards from
earthquakes and wildfires; electrical and
water usage; management of radioactive
materials; waste management; concerns
related to environmental cleanup;
decontamination, decommissioning,
and demolition of the CMRR–NF; pit
production and stockpile stewardship;
arms reduction and nonproliferation
treaty compliance; and facility costs and
potential other uses of funds. NNSA has
determined that is appropriate to
respond further to the following
comments extracted from these seven
documents and summarized below:
Comment 1: The CMRR–NF SEIS
Comment Response Document (CRD)
(Volume 2) did not include all
comments received.
Response: NNSA endeavored to
include in the CRD all comments that it
received in response to the Draft SEIS
but inadvertently overlooked one letter
which was a variant of Campaign Y. In
the CRD, NNSA categorized letters with
similar language as ‘‘campaigns’’ for the
purpose of providing a consolidated
response. The omitted letter mirrored
the Campaign Y letter, and also
included comments on four additional
issues: (1) Alternative designation in the
SEIS, (2) electricity use at LANL during
construction of the CMRR–NF, (3)
transuranic waste disposal, and (4) the
ability of the preferred site to support
the weight of the proposed CMRR–NF.
After reviewing these additional
comments, NNSA has concluded that
they were addressed in NNSA’s
responses to other comments received
during the public comment period (see,
e.g., responses to comments 108–3, 153–
5, 204–37, and 57–1, respectively).
Therefore, NNSA does not believe that
this inadvertent oversight affects the
analysis in the Final SEIS or this
decision document. No other
commentors contacted NNSA to
communicate that their comments were
not included in the CRD.
Comment 2: The Final CMRR–NF
SEIS does not state which Construction
Option NNSA prefers for the Modified
CMRR–N F Alternative (Shallow
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64347
Excavation Option or Deep Excavation
Option).
Response: NNSA prepared the final
CMRR–NF SEIS document in
accordance with CEQ and DOE NEPA
regulations which require the
identification of a preferred alternative
in a Final EIS document, by identifying
the Modified CMRR–NF Alternative as
its preferred Alternative. (See Volume I,
Chapter 2, Section 2.9.) NNSA analyzed
and presented within the CMRR–NF
SEIS the full range of potential direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts for
each of the two options (Shallow
Excavation and Deep Excavation) that
NNSA identified for construction of the
preferred alternative.
Both the Deep and the Shallow
Excavation options contemplate
construction of essentially the same
building structure to provide the same
functional capabilities. Thus both
options require the same sets of safety
controls and key equipment. Further, as
the SEIS analysis indicates, once
construction is complete and operations
commence, both options are expected to
result in similar offsite environmental
consequences. The additional
geotechnical and structural design
calculations and more detailed
engineering analysis NNSA will
conduct pursuant to the decision
announced in this AROD, prior to
selecting a construction option for
implementation, are not expected to
identify any additional environmental
impacts associated with either
excavation option beyond those
analyzed and presented in the final
SEIS.
Comment 3: The reference, Interim
Report, Update of the Probabilistic
Seismic Hazard Analysis and
Development of CMRR Design Ground
Motions Los Alamos National
Laboratory, New Mexico, was not
included in the April 2011 draft
document, and therefore the public did
not have an opportunity to review and
comment on it.
Response: As discussed in the Final
CMRR–NF SEIS, the reference, a 2009
update to the 2007 probabilistic seismic
hazard analysis (PSHA), was not
publicly available at the time the Draft
CMRR–NF SEIS was prepared; however,
it has subsequently been made available
to the public upon request and has been
incorporated into the Final CMRR–NF
SEIS. Based on the 2009 study, the TA–
55 horizontal and vertical peak ground
acceleration values for a 2,500-year
return period showed a reduction in
acceleration values compared to the
2007 study. However, the more
conservative acceleration values from
the 2007 study are currently being used
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
64348
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2011 / Notices
for the seismic design of the CMRR–NF
structure, and the public did have an
opportunity to review and comment on
those values. Regardless of whether the
2007 or 2009 study values are used,
NNSA plans to construct the CMRR–NF
to meet the requirements of a
performance category 3 structure as
discussed in the Final CMRR–NF SEIS.
Comment 4: LANL should
immediately install a network of weak
motion seismographs to improve
knowledge of kappa.
Response: LANL has both weak and
strong motion seismic networks that
continue to be updated and improved.
Numerous earthquakes have been
recorded by the weak motion network
and are part of the earthquake catalog
referenced in the probabilistic seismic
hazard analysis (PSHA). Inference of a
value for kappa requires an earthquake
recording that is on-scale and has
significant bandwidth as documented in
the 2007 PSHA. Because of this
requirement, the number of records that
can be used for estimating a value for
kappa is limited. LANL has and will
continue to improve and upgrade the
seismic network. As additional seismic
data are collected by the LANL weak
and strong motion seismic arrays, the
value of kappa will be further refined
and its uncertainty reduced. However,
further refinement of the value of kappa
is not essential for the purposes of the
environmental impact analysis.
[FR Doc. 2011–26881 Filed 10–17–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Federal Advisory Committee Act;
Advisory Committee on Diversity for
Communications in the Digital Age
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, this
notice advises interested persons that
the Federal Communications
Commission’s (FCC) Advisory
Committee on Diversity for
Communications in the Digital Age
(‘‘Diversity Committee’’). The
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
Committee’s mission is to provide
recommendations to the Commission
regarding policies and practices that
will further enhance diversity in the
telecommunications and related
industries. In particular, the Committee
will focus primarily on lowering
barriers to entry for historically
disadvantaged men and women,
exploring ways in which to ensure
universal access to and adoption of
broadband, and creating an environment
that enables employment of a diverse
workforce within the
telecommunications and related
industries. The Committee will be
charged with gathering the data and
information necessary to formulate
meaningful recommendations for these
objectives.
DATES: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 at
2 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, Room TW–C305
(Commission Meeting Room, TW–
C305), 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara Kreisman, 202–418–1605;
Barbara.Kreisman@FCC.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is the
first meeting of the Diversity Federal
Advisory Committee under its current
charter. At this meeting the new
committee structure and other
organizational matters will be
discussed. Further, the substantive
direction and goals of this committee
will also be considered.
Members of the general public may
attend the meeting. The FCC will
attempt to accommodate as many
people as possible. However,
admittance will be limited to seating
availability. The public may submit
written comments before the meeting to:
Barbara Kreisman, the FCC’s Designated
Federal Officer for the Diversity
Committee by e-mail:
Barbara.Kreisman@fcc.gov or U.S.
Postal Service Mail (Barbara Kreisman,
Federal Communications Commission,
Room 2–A665, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554).
Open captioning will be provided for
this event. Other reasonable
accommodations for people with
disabilities are available upon request.
Requests for such accommodations
should be submitted via e-mail to
fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (tty). Such requests should
include a detailed description of the
accommodation needed. In addition,
please include a way we can contact
you if we need more information. Please
allow at least five days advance notice;
last minute requests will be accepted,
but may be impossible to fill.
Additional information regarding the
Diversity Committee can be found at
https://www.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC.
Federal Communications Commission.
Barbara A. Kreisman,
Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2011–26818 Filed 10–17–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Granting of Request for Early
Termination of the Waiting Period
Under the Premerger Notification
Rules
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the
Hart-Scott-Rodin Antitrust
Improvements Act of 1976, requires
persons contemplating certain mergers
or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade
Commission and the Assistant Attorney
General advance notice and to wait
designated periods before
consummation of such plans. Section
7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies,
in individual cases, to terminate this
waiting period prior to its expiration
and requires that notice of this action be
published in the Federal Register.
The following transactions were
granted early termination—on the dates
indicated—of the waiting period
provided by law and the premerger
notification rules. The listing for each
transaction includes the transaction
number and the parties to the
transaction. The grants were made by
the Federal Trade Commission and the
Assistant Attorney General for the
Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice. Neither agency intends to take
any action with respect to these
proposed acquisitions during the
applicable waiting period.
EARLY TERMINATIONS GRANTED SEPTEMBER 1, 2011 THRU SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
09/01/2011
20111162 ......
VerDate Mar<15>2010
G
Health Management Associates, Inc.; Catholic Health Partners; Health Management Associates, Inc.
16:46 Oct 17, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64344-64348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26881]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration
Amended Record of Decision for the Nuclear Facility Portion of
the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project at
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM
AGENCY: National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Amended Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this Amended Record of
Decision (AROD) for the Nuclear Facility portion of the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Building Replacement (CMRR) Project at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in Los Alamos, New Mexico. After
completing an EIS, NNSA issued a ROD for the CMRR Project on February
3, 2004, deciding to construct a two-building, partially above-ground,
CMRR Facility in Technical Area-55 (TA-55) at LANL. This new facility
would replace the aging 60-year-old Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
(CMR) Building at LANL, and would ensure the ability to continue to
perform analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations
using plutonium and other actinides in a safe, secure manner in support
of NNSA mission activities. As the CMRR Project planning and design
process has progressed over the past 8 years, the first building of the
two-building CMRR Facility (the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office
Building, also known as the RLUOB) has been constructed. During this
same time period, primarily as a result of efforts to better understand
the seismic environment at the selected construction site in TA-55,
several design considerations and ancillary support requirements were
identified for the CMRR Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) that had not been
anticipated in 2003. These design considerations and additional
ancillary support requirements were not analyzed in the 2003 CMRR EIS.
To address this new information, NNSA recently completed a supplemental
environmental impact statement, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for the Nuclear Facility Portion of the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico (the CMRR-NF SEIS). The CMRR-NF SEIS
analyzes the potential environmental impacts of proposed construction
changes to the CMRR-NF to address site seismic and safety
considerations, as well as newly identified ancillary construction
support requirements, such as additional equipment storage areas, soil
storage areas, additional transportation needs, and worker parking
areas under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative and compares these impacts
to those identified for the construction project selected in the 2004
ROD (No Action Alternative) and for continued operation of the existing
CMR facility. NNSA has considered this analysis as well as comments
submitted by the public on the Draft and Final CMRR-NF SEIS and has
decided to select the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative for constructing and
operating the CMRR-NF portion of the CMRR Project. NNSA will select the
appropriate Excavation Option (Shallow or Deep) for implementing the
construction of this building after initiating final design activities,
when additional geotechnical and structural design calculations and
more detailed engineering analysis will be performed to support
completing the facility design.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about the
CMRR-NF SEIS or this CMRR-NF AROD, or to receive copies of the CMRR-NF
SEIS, contact: Mr. George J. Rael, Assistant Manager Environmental
Operations, NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy,
National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Site Office, 3747
West Jemez Road, Los Alamos, NM 87544. Mr. Rael may be contacted by
telephone at 505-606-0397, or via e-mail at: NEPALASO@doeal.gov. The
CMRR-NF SEIS is posted at https://www.nnsa.energy.gov/nepa and also at
https://www.energy.gov/nepa/downloads/eis-0350-s1-final-supplemental-environmental-impact-statement. For information on the DOE NEPA
process, contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA
Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4600, or
leave a message at (800) 472-2756. Additional information regarding DOE
NEPA activities and access to many DOE NEPA documents are available on
the Internet through the DOE NEPA Web site at: https://www.energy.gov/nepa.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
LANL is a multidisciplinary, multipurpose research institution in
north-central New Mexico, about 60 miles (97 kilometers) north-
northeast of Albuquerque, and about 25 miles (40 kilometers) northwest
of Santa Fe. Since the early 1950s, analytical chemistry (AC) and
materials characterization (MC) work has been performed in the CMR
Building at LANL. The CMR Building provides essential support for
various national security missions, including nuclear nonproliferation
programs; the manufacturing, development, and surveillance of pits (the
fissile core of a nuclear warhead); life extension programs;
dismantlement efforts; waste management; material recycle and recovery;
and research. The CMR Building is almost 60 years old and near the end
of its useful life. Many of its utility systems and structural
components are aged, outmoded, and deteriorated. In the 1990s,
geological studies identified a seismic fault trace located beneath two
of the wings of the CMR Building, which raised concerns about the
structural integrity of the facility. Over the long term, NNSA cannot
continue to operate the mission-critical AC and MC capabilities in the
existing CMR Building at an acceptable
[[Page 64345]]
level of risk to worker safety and health. NNSA has already taken steps
to minimize the risks associated with continued operations at the CMR
Building.
To ensure that NNSA can fulfill its national security mission for
the next 50 years in a safe, secure, and environmentally sound manner,
NNSA proposed in 2002 to construct a CMR replacement facility, and this
became the subject of the 2003 Environmental Impact Statement for the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project, Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico (DOE/EIS-0350, CMRR
EIS) and the subsequent 2004 ROD (69 FR 6967). Since the issuance of
the 2004 ROD, new information on the seismic environment at Los Alamos,
as well as revisions to safety system requirements, have become
available, indicating that changes to the design of the CMRR-NF are
appropriate. The need for additional construction support activities
and ancillary construction work spaces has also been identified. These
changes resulted in NNSA's decision to prepare a supplement to the 2003
CMRR EIS, the CMRR-NF SEIS, pursuant to the regulations of the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts
1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021).
Decisions in this AROD are based in part on information and analyses
contained in the CMRR-NF SEIS, DOE/EIS-0350-S1.
NEPA Process for the CMRR-NF SEIS
NNSA started the process for preparing the CMRR-NF SEIS by
publishing in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent to prepare the
CMRR-NF SEIS, inviting the public to participate in a scoping process
to help shape NNSA's supplemental analysis (75 FR 60745, October 1,
2010). The public scoping period extended from October 1 through
November 16, 2010. In preparing the Draft CMRR-NF SEIS, NNSA considered
all scoping comments received during the scoping period. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NNSA simultaneously published
Notices of Availability for the Draft CMRR-NF SEIS in the Federal
Register on April 29, 2011 (76 FR 24021 and 76 FR 24018, respectively).
These notices invited public comment on the Draft CMRR-NF SEIS from
April 29 through June 13, 2011. NNSA later published another notice in
the Federal Register on May 16, 2011, extending the public comment
period through June 28, 2011 (76 FR 28222), for a total comment period
of 60 days. Four public hearings on the Draft CMRR-NF SEIS were held in
Los Alamos, Espa[ntilde]ola, Santa Fe, and Albuquerque, New Mexico,
from May 23 through May 26, 2011. NNSA issued the Final CMRR-NF SEIS on
August 26, 2011, and the EPA published a Notice of Availability for the
Final CMRR-NF SEIS on September 2, 2011 (76 FR 54768).
Alternatives Considered
In the CMRR-NF SEIS, NNSA analyzed the potential environmental
impacts associated with three alternatives for the CMRR-NF: (1) The No
Action Alternative, (2) the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, and (3) the
Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative.
The No Action Alternative (2004 CMRR-NF) analyzed in the CMRR-NF
SEIS consists of continuing to implement earlier NNSA decisions issued
in the 2004 ROD based on the 2003 CMRR EIS and modified by subsequent
NEPA decisions related to site infrastructure. NNSA determined that the
building, as conceived in 2003, would not sufficiently meet subsequent
safety and seismic requirements to allow the full suite of NNSA
mission-assigned work to be conducted.
Two action alternatives were analyzed in the CMRR-NF SEIS: the
Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, and the Continued Use of CMR Building
Alternative. The Modified CMRR-NF Alternative consists of constructing
and operating a new CMRR-NF at TA-55 adjacent to RLUOB, with certain
design and construction modifications and additional support activities
that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear-
safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two
construction options were considered under this alternative: the Deep
Excavation Option and the Shallow Excavation Option. All necessary AC
and MC activities could be performed within the modified CMRR-NF to
support the full suite of NNSA mission work. The Continued Use of CMR
Building Alternative would consist of continuing to perform a
restricted suite of operations in the existing CMR Building with normal
maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain
programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Administrative and
radiological laboratory operations would be conducted in RLUOB at TA-
55, and no construction activities would be associated with this
alternative.
Preferred Alternative
As discussed in Volume I, Chapter 2, Section 2.9 of the CMRR-NF
SEIS, NNSA identified the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative as its preferred
alternative in both the Draft and the Final versions of the document.
However, NNSA did not identify a preferred construction option in the
CMRR-NF SEIS.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
Considering the long-term need to maintain its capability to
conduct AC and MC operations at LANL, NNSA believes that the Modified
CMRR-NF Alternative is the environmentally preferable alternative for
meeting its full suite of mission work requirements. Replacing the
aging CMR Building with a new facility that incorporates modern safety,
security, and efficiency standards would improve NNSA's ability to
protect human health and the environment both during normal operations
and in the event of an accident or natural phenomena event, such as a
wildfire or earthquake.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
NNSA analyzed the potential impacts of each alternative on: Land
use and visual resources; site infrastructure; air quality (including
greenhouse gases); noise; geology and soils; surface and groundwater
quality; ecological resources; cultural and paleontological resources;
socioeconomics; environmental justice; human health; waste management
and pollution prevention; transportation; traffic; and cumulative
impacts. NNSA also evaluated the potential impacts of each alternative
associated with the irreversible or irretrievable commitments of
resources, and the relationship between short-term uses of the
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity. In addition, NNSA evaluated impacts of potential
accidents, including those tied to seismic risk, on workers and
surrounding populations. These analyses and results are described in
Volume I, Chapter 4 of the CMRR-NF SEIS. The CMRR-NF SEIS includes a
classified appendix that analyzes the potential environmental impacts
of intentional destructive acts (credible terrorist scenarios) that
might occur at the CMRR-NF.
Comments on the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Following publication of the Final CMRR-NF SEIS in August 2011, and
prior to issuing this AROD, NNSA received 7 comment documents. The
appendix to this AROD contains a summary of these comments and provides
NNSA's responses for those
[[Page 64346]]
cases where in NNSA's view the comment documents introduce new
concerns/issues that were not addressed in the Final SEIS. NNSA has
concluded that none of the comments received necessitate further NEPA
analysis.
Decisions
NNSA's decisions are based on its mission responsibilities and its
need to sustain AC and MC work at LANL in a manner that allows it to
fulfill these responsibilities in a safe and environmentally
conscientious manner. The CMRR-NF would provide vitally essential
technical support capabilities to NNSA's national security missions,
which include maintaining the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and
nonproliferation programs. NNSA has decided to select the Modified
CMRR-NF Alternative to continue AC and MC operations at LANL as
described in Volume I, Chapter 2, Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of the CMRR-NF
SEIS. NNSA will also initiate the facility disposition of the existing
CMR Building and the CMRR-NF as operations cease in those structures.
The benefits of implementing the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative include
reliable, long-term, consolidated plutonium research and storage
capabilities for the nuclear security enterprise with modern
technologies and facilities; improved health and safety for workers and
the public; improved operational efficiency; and reductions in the
long-term cost of operating and maintaining the facility.
Additional Background and Summary of the NEPA Comparison of Excavation
Options
When the probabilistic seismic hazards analysis was prepared in
2007 (LA-UR-07-3965), the CMRR Project team proposed and investigated
changing the design for the CMRR-NF that had been selected in the 2004
ROD to increase the thickness in certain floors, the height between
floors to provide access, and the thickness of the basemat to improve
performance in a seismic event. With these changes, the overall
building, measured from the bottom of the basemat to the top of the
roof, would have been higher. The design was further revised to
maintain the above-ground height of the building by providing a deeper
building excavation. This design change resulted in the Deep Excavation
Option. The Deep Excavation Option would entail excavating through the
layer of poorly welded tuff at the construction site and filling the
hole with low-slump concrete to the elevation of the bottom of the
basemat, as discussed in Volume I, Chapter 2, Section 2.6.2 of the
SEIS. The environmental impacts associated with these activities are
discussed in Volume I, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.
Scoping comments for the CMRR-NF SEIS requested that NNSA look for
and analyze alternative design/construction options for the CMRR-NF,
including those which might reduce cost and environmental impact by
avoiding the need for a deep excavation. Consistent with the rationale
in this request, NNSA performed a review of the requirements for the
design of the CMRR-NF, which identified an opportunity to avoid the
activities and costs associated with the additional excavation and
concrete fill required for the Deep Excavation Option by raising the
bottom of the basemat to near the original design elevation. Following
this review, NNSA began analyzing this additional option for inclusion
in the Draft SEIS. Under this design/construction option for the CMRR-
NF, which came to be known as the Shallow Excavation Option, the
overall building height (bottom of basemat to top of roof) would remain
the same, but the top of the roof would be higher aboveground than it
was in the conceptual and preliminary design. Geotechnical reviews
performed for this Shallow Excavation Option concluded that the
substrate is sufficiently strong to withstand the weight of the
proposed CMRR-NF, such that intolerable amounts of seismically- and
non-seismically-induced settlement and lateral shifting of the
foundation would not occur. The allowable bearing pressure of the soil
is much greater than the pressure caused by the buildings. Both the
Deep and the Shallow Excavation options require the same sets of safety
controls and the SEIS analysis indicates that they are expected to
result in similar offsite environmental consequences. However, the
Shallow Excavation Option reduces risk and provides some reductions in
construction impacts and cost without affecting other building design
requirements. Risk reduction would be realized by a decrease in:
excavating, hauling, and storing soil (approximately 9,000 fewer truck
trips depending on hauling capacity and 309,000 fewer cubic yards of
soil excavated); scope of geotechnical monitoring; extent of slope
stabilization; and safety precautions for working in a deep hole.
Reductions in construction impacts would include a reduced project
footprint for excavated spoils storage (20 fewer acres); fewer truck
trips on- and off-site from LANL; fewer materials procured (a savings
of 250,000 cubic yards of concrete); and reduced water use (8 million
fewer gallons over the course of construction).
NNSA will begin the implementation of its decision to select the
Modified CMRR-NF Alternative for constructing and operating the CMRR-NF
portion of the CMRR Facility Project by conducting additional detailed
design and analysis activities. Continuing forward into final design is
expected to result in additional refinement of the information
available to NNSA for making its selection of the construction option
to be implemented. NNSA will select the appropriate Excavation Option
for implementing the construction of this building after initiating
final design activities when additional geotechnical and structural
design calculations and more-detailed design engineering analysis will
be conducted. In making its selection, NNSA will consider the data it
obtains from these studies and analysis, the moderate distinctions in
environmental impacts between the two excavation options, and other
relevant factors such as additional evaluation of security features and
more-detailed cost estimates.
Mitigation Measures
All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have
been and will continue to be adopted and employed in the design,
construction, and operation of the CMRR-NF. CMRR-NF construction
activities will follow standard practices required by federal and state
licensing and permitting requirements for minimizing construction
impacts on air and surface-water quality, noise, operational and public
health and safety, and accident prevention. As described in Volume I,
Chapter 5 of the CMRR-NF SEIS, NNSA and LANL operate pursuant to a
number of environmental laws and regulations, as well as several other
controls, including DOE Orders, policies and contractual requirements.
Many of these mandate actions that would mitigate potential adverse
environmental impacts related to the construction and subsequent
operation of the CMRR-NF. Based on consideration of these mandated
mitigation actions, and the analyses of the environmental consequences
provided in the CMRR-NF SEIS for this action, no additional mitigation
measures would be necessary for many resource areas because the
potential environmental impacts are expected to be well below
acceptable levels set in promulgated standards.
A summary of all prior mitigation commitments for LANL that are
either underway or to be initiated are included in the over-arching
LANL SWEIS Mitigation Action Plan (SWEIS MAP).
[[Page 64347]]
Prior SWEIS MAP commitments include such actions as continued forest
management efforts, trail management efforts, and implementation of a
variety of site sampling and monitoring measures, as well as measures
to reduce potable water use and implement resource conservation
initiatives. A Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) for the CMRR-NF SEIS ROD
will be issued by NNSA and made available at https://www.doeal.gov/laso/NEPADocuments.aspx. This MAP will include specific requirements for:
potable water usage reduction measures; traffic flow improvements; and
measures to meet electric power peak capacity demands. Starting in
2012, these new mitigation measures specific to the CMRR-NF project
will be incorporated into the overall LANL SWEIS MAP. Reporting will be
consolidated into subsequent MAP Annual Reports issued by NNSA and made
publicly available at: https://www.lanl.gov/environment/nepa/sweis.shtml.
In addition, NNSA will continue its on-going efforts to support the
local Pueblos and other tribal entities in matters of human health, and
will participate in various intergovernmental efforts to protect
indigenous practices and locations of concern. NNSA will continue to
conduct government-to-government consultations with the Pueblos and
other tribal entities to incorporate these matters into the SWEIS MAP,
as deemed appropriate.
Issued at Washington, DC, this 12th day of October, 2011.
Thomas P. D'Agostino,
Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration.
Appendix to the CMRR-NF Amended ROD
Following publication of the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement for the Nuclear Facility Portion of the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos New Mexico, DOE/EIS-0350-S1 (Final CMRR-NF SEIS)
in August 2011, and prior to issuing of this Amended Record of Decision
(AROD), the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) received
seven comment documents related to the Final CMRR-NF SEIS. Having
reviewed and fully considered the comments received in the comment
documents, NNSA has determined that these comments do not provide
information that affects the analysis in the Final CMRR-NF SEIS.
NNSA has further determined that many of the issues in these
comment documents are either similar, or in some cases identical to,
comments that were submitted on the Draft CMRR-NF SEIS which were
addressed by NNSA in the Final CMRR-NF SEIS comment response document
(Volume II of the FSEIS). These include comments related to NNSA's
implementation of the NEPA process; the requirements for a supplemental
environmental impact statement; the purpose and need for action; the
range of alternatives evaluated; radioactive contaminants in the
environment; consideration of geologic and seismic risks at LANL in
facility design; hazards from earthquakes and wildfires; electrical and
water usage; management of radioactive materials; waste management;
concerns related to environmental cleanup; decontamination,
decommissioning, and demolition of the CMRR-NF; pit production and
stockpile stewardship; arms reduction and nonproliferation treaty
compliance; and facility costs and potential other uses of funds. NNSA
has determined that is appropriate to respond further to the following
comments extracted from these seven documents and summarized below:
Comment 1: The CMRR-NF SEIS Comment Response Document (CRD) (Volume
2) did not include all comments received.
Response: NNSA endeavored to include in the CRD all comments that
it received in response to the Draft SEIS but inadvertently overlooked
one letter which was a variant of Campaign Y. In the CRD, NNSA
categorized letters with similar language as ``campaigns'' for the
purpose of providing a consolidated response. The omitted letter
mirrored the Campaign Y letter, and also included comments on four
additional issues: (1) Alternative designation in the SEIS, (2)
electricity use at LANL during construction of the CMRR-NF, (3)
transuranic waste disposal, and (4) the ability of the preferred site
to support the weight of the proposed CMRR-NF. After reviewing these
additional comments, NNSA has concluded that they were addressed in
NNSA's responses to other comments received during the public comment
period (see, e.g., responses to comments 108-3, 153-5, 204-37, and 57-
1, respectively). Therefore, NNSA does not believe that this
inadvertent oversight affects the analysis in the Final SEIS or this
decision document. No other commentors contacted NNSA to communicate
that their comments were not included in the CRD.
Comment 2: The Final CMRR-NF SEIS does not state which Construction
Option NNSA prefers for the Modified CMRR-N F Alternative (Shallow
Excavation Option or Deep Excavation Option).
Response: NNSA prepared the final CMRR-NF SEIS document in
accordance with CEQ and DOE NEPA regulations which require the
identification of a preferred alternative in a Final EIS document, by
identifying the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative as its preferred
Alternative. (See Volume I, Chapter 2, Section 2.9.) NNSA analyzed and
presented within the CMRR-NF SEIS the full range of potential direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts for each of the two options (Shallow
Excavation and Deep Excavation) that NNSA identified for construction
of the preferred alternative.
Both the Deep and the Shallow Excavation options contemplate
construction of essentially the same building structure to provide the
same functional capabilities. Thus both options require the same sets
of safety controls and key equipment. Further, as the SEIS analysis
indicates, once construction is complete and operations commence, both
options are expected to result in similar offsite environmental
consequences. The additional geotechnical and structural design
calculations and more detailed engineering analysis NNSA will conduct
pursuant to the decision announced in this AROD, prior to selecting a
construction option for implementation, are not expected to identify
any additional environmental impacts associated with either excavation
option beyond those analyzed and presented in the final SEIS.
Comment 3: The reference, Interim Report, Update of the
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Development of CMRR Design
Ground Motions Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, was not
included in the April 2011 draft document, and therefore the public did
not have an opportunity to review and comment on it.
Response: As discussed in the Final CMRR-NF SEIS, the reference, a
2009 update to the 2007 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA),
was not publicly available at the time the Draft CMRR-NF SEIS was
prepared; however, it has subsequently been made available to the
public upon request and has been incorporated into the Final CMRR-NF
SEIS. Based on the 2009 study, the TA-55 horizontal and vertical peak
ground acceleration values for a 2,500-year return period showed a
reduction in acceleration values compared to the 2007 study. However,
the more conservative acceleration values from the 2007 study are
currently being used
[[Page 64348]]
for the seismic design of the CMRR-NF structure, and the public did
have an opportunity to review and comment on those values. Regardless
of whether the 2007 or 2009 study values are used, NNSA plans to
construct the CMRR-NF to meet the requirements of a performance
category 3 structure as discussed in the Final CMRR-NF SEIS.
Comment 4: LANL should immediately install a network of weak motion
seismographs to improve knowledge of kappa.
Response: LANL has both weak and strong motion seismic networks
that continue to be updated and improved. Numerous earthquakes have
been recorded by the weak motion network and are part of the earthquake
catalog referenced in the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA).
Inference of a value for kappa requires an earthquake recording that is
on-scale and has significant bandwidth as documented in the 2007 PSHA.
Because of this requirement, the number of records that can be used for
estimating a value for kappa is limited. LANL has and will continue to
improve and upgrade the seismic network. As additional seismic data are
collected by the LANL weak and strong motion seismic arrays, the value
of kappa will be further refined and its uncertainty reduced. However,
further refinement of the value of kappa is not essential for the
purposes of the environmental impact analysis.
[FR Doc. 2011-26881 Filed 10-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
