Record of Decision for the Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 12831-12836 [2024-03351]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Notices
Title of Collection: Foreign Institution
Reporting Requirements under the
CARES Act.
OMB Control Number: 1845–NEW.
Type of Review: New ICR.
Respondents/Affected Public: State,
Local, and Tribal Governments; Private
Sector.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 104.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Burden Hours: 52.
Abstract: The Department of
Education (the Department) is
requesting a new information collection,
1845–NEW, Foreign Institution
Reporting Requirements under the
CARES Act, be made available for full
clearance with public comment. Section
3510(a) of the CARES Act, Public Law
116–136 (March 27, 2020), authorized
the Secretary of Education (Secretary) to
permit a foreign institution, in the case
of a public health emergency, major
disaster or emergency, or national
emergency declared by the applicable
government authorities in the country in
which the foreign institution is located,
to provide any part of an otherwise
eligible program to be offered via
distance education for the duration of
such emergency or disaster and the
following payment period for purposes
of title IV of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.).
Additionally, under section 3510(d) of
the CARES Act, the Secretary may allow
a foreign institution to enter into a
written arrangement with an institution
of higher education located in the
United States that participates in the
Federal Direct Loan Program under part
D of title IV of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087a et seq.) for the
purpose of allowing a student of the
foreign institution who is a borrower of
a loan made under such part to take
courses from the institution of higher
education located in the United States.
The CARES Act requires foreign
institutions that use either type of
authority described above to report such
use to the Secretary. Institutions are
required to report use of either distance
education or written arrangements to
the Department no later than 30 days
after it begins offering coursework
online to Direct Loan recipients. The
Department must also collect specific
information from a school that requests
a waiver in order to determine if the
school is eligible to receive the waiver.
On May 12, 2020, Federal Student Aid,
an Office of the Department, notified
foreign institutions of the new authority
and requested that any foreign
institution who wished to utilize this
new authority to respond with
information specified in the email. This
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Feb 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
information collection was discontinued
following the discontinuation of the
national COVID–19 emergency status.
However, due to other global situations
we are now requesting a new collection
to allow for the on-going use of the
CARES Act waiver.
Dated: February 13, 2024.
Kun Mullan,
PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and
Clearance, Governance and Strategy Division,
Office of Chief Data Officer, Office of
Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Development.
[FR Doc. 2024–03341 Filed 2–16–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security
Administration
Record of Decision for the Final SiteWide Environmental Impact Statement
for Continued Operation of the
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory
National Nuclear Security
Administration, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
AGENCY:
The National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA), a
semi-autonomous agency within the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), is
issuing this Record of Decision (ROD)
for the Final Site-Wide Environmental
Impact Statement (SWEIS) for
Continued Operation of the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
in California (Final LLNL SWEIS) (DOE/
EIS–0547). NNSA prepared the Final
LLNL SWEIS to analyze the potential
environmental impacts associated with
reasonable alternatives for continuing
LLNL operations and foreseeable new
and/or modified operations and
facilities for approximately the next 15
years. The SWEIS analyzes two
alternatives: No-Action Alternative and
Proposed Action. In this ROD, NNSA
announces its decision to implement the
Proposed Action.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information on this ROD or the
LLNL SWEIS, contact: Thomas Grim,
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Document Manager, National
Nuclear Security Administration,
Livermore Field Office, P.O. Box 808,
Livermore, CA 94551; via email at
LLNLSWEIS@nnsa.doe.gov, or by phone
at (833)778–0508. This ROD, the LLNL
SWEIS, and related NEPA documents
are available at www.energy.gov/nnsa/
nnsa-nepa-reading-room.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12831
Background
The NNSA is responsible for meeting
the national security requirements
established by the President and
Congress to maintain and enhance the
safety, reliability, and performance of
the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. The
continued operation of LLNL is critical
to NNSA’s Stockpile Stewardship and
Management Program, to prevent the
spread and use of nuclear weapons
worldwide, and to many other areas that
may impact national security and global
stability (50 U.S.C. 2521).
LLNL is a federally funded research
and development center that conducts
research for the U.S. Government in
accordance with 48 CFR 35.017. LLNL
has been in existence since 1952,
employs approximately 8,000 people
(employees and contractors), and has a
current annual budget of approximately
$3 billion.
LLNL consists of two federally owned
sites: an 821-acre site in Livermore,
California (Livermore Site), and a 7,000acre experimental test site (Site 300)
southeast of the Livermore Site between
Livermore and Tracy, California. Most
LLNL operations are located at the
Livermore Site, which is situated about
50 miles east of San Francisco in
southeastern Alameda County. Site 300
is primarily a test site for high
explosives and non-nuclear weapons
components; it is located about 15 miles
southeast of Livermore in the hills of the
Diablo Range. LLNL’s primary
responsibility is ensuring the safety,
reliability, and performance of the
nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile.
However, LLNL’s mission is broader
than stockpile stewardship, as dangers
ranging from nuclear proliferation and
terrorism to biosecurity and climate
change threaten national security and
global stability. More than eighteen (18)
years have passed since the publication
of the 2005 Final Site-wide
Environmental Impact Statement for
Continued Operation of Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and
Supplemental Stockpile Stewardship
and Management Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (2005
LLNL SWEIS). Because of proposed
plans for new facilities, demolition of
older facilities, enhanced and
modernized site utilities projects, as
well as needed modifications/upgrades
of existing facilities to ensure ongoing
safe operations, NNSA determined that
it was appropriate to update the
previous 2005 LLNL SWEIS analysis.
Under the No-Action Alternative,
NNSA would continue current facility
operations throughout LLNL in support
of assigned missions. The No-Action
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
12832
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Alternative includes previously
approved construction of new facilities;
modernization, upgrade, and utility
projects; and decontamination,
decommission, and demolition (DD&D)
of excess and aging facilities.
The Proposed Action in the 2023
Final LLNL SWEIS includes an increase
in current facility operations or
enhanced operations that would require
new or modified facilities over the next
15 years. The Proposed Action also
includes the scope of operations, facility
construction, and DD&D under the NoAction Alternative through 2022.
Continued re-investment would allow
LLNL to meet mission deliverables and
sustain science, technology, and
engineering excellence to meet future
mission requirements. In addition to the
No-Action Alternative, the Proposed
Action includes approximately 75 new
projects, totaling approximately 3.3
million square feet, from 2023–2035.
NNSA also proposes 20 types of
modernization/upgrade/utility projects,
most involving several facilities. Under
the Proposed Action, about 150
facilities, totaling approximately
1,170,000 square feet would undergo
DD&D. The Proposed Action also
includes operational changes that would
increase the tritium emissions limits in
the National Ignition Facility (NIF)
(Building 581) and the Tritium Facility
(Building 331), and decrease the
administrative limit for fuels-gradeequivalent plutonium in the Superblock
(Building 332). In addition, the
Proposed Action increases the
administrative limits for plutonium-239
at Building 235, and increases the NIF
administrative limits for plutonium-239
and tritium. The administrative limit
changes for both Building 235 and the
NIF would maintain the existing facility
characterization of ‘‘less than Hazard
Category-3’’ in accordance with DOE
Standard (DOE–STD–1027) revisions
approved for use at LLNL.
NEPA Process for This ROD
NNSA has prepared this ROD in
accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of the
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347, as
amended), regulations promulgated by
the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) for implementing NEPA (40 CFR
parts 1500–1508), and DOE’s NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part
1021). This ROD is based on Federal law
and NNSA’s mission, and information
and analysis in the Final LLNL SWEIS
including public comments received.
The Draft LLNL SWEIS was distributed
electronically for review and comment
as part of the public participation
process. During the comment period,
NNSA held two in-person hearings and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Feb 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
one virtual hearing to receive comments
on the Draft LLNL SWEIS. At the inperson hearings, an open house
preceded the formal public comment
period. During the open house, the
public was invited to engage with
NNSA personnel within their areas of
expertise and ask questions about the
Draft SWEIS. The in-person and virtual
hearings were attended by
approximately 70 persons and 29
speakers provided comments. These
comments were recorded in formal
transcripts. In addition to the comments
during the public hearings,
approximately 84 comment documents
(including 41 comment documents
submitted as an email campaign) were
received from individuals, interested
groups, and Federal, State, and local
agencies during the comment period on
the Draft LLNL SWEIS.
The majority of the comments
received on the Draft SWEIS focused on
the NEPA process, policy issues, and
the scope of the Proposed Action. Scans
of those comment documents are
located in Volume 3 (Comment
Response Document [CRD]) of the Final
LLNL SWEIS. In addition, comments
from the three public hearings are
included in the scanned transcripts,
which are also located in Volume 3. All
comments received were treated equally
by NNSA. Chapter 2 of Volume 3
contains summaries of all comments
received on the LLNL Draft SWEIS as
well as NNSA’s responses to those
comments. After considering all
comments and modifying the Draft
SWEIS, NNSA completed the Final
LLNL SWEIS. NNSA posted the Final
LLNL SWEIS on the NNSA NEPA
Reading Room website
(www.energy.gov/nnsa/nnsa-nepareading-room) and published a Notice of
Availability in the Federal Register (88
FR 75566, November 3, 2023). Hard
copies of the Final LLNL SWEIS were
delivered to the City of Livermore and
Tracy public libraries. During the 30day period after the Notice of
Availability, NNSA received 24
comment documents related to the Final
LLNL SWEIS. This ROD includes
NNSA’s responses to those comments.
Summary of Impacts
Brief summaries of impacts are
provided below for each resource area:
Land Use: At the Livermore Site total
land disturbance would be 85.5 acres.
About 26.5 acres of land would be
reclaimed as a result of DD&D; 2.5 acres
restored for cooling tower pipeline; and
4 acres of laydown areas would also be
restored. Net change in land disturbance
would be 52.5 acres. Removal of limited
area fencing, expanded bicycle network,
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
expanded pedestrian walkways,
rebalanced vehicle parking, and Lake
Haussmann enhancements would create
more green space by 2035. At Site 300,
land disturbance would be 36 acres, and
0.4 acres of land would be reclaimed as
a result of DD&D, and 1 acre of laydown
areas would be restored. Net change in
land disturbance would be 34.6 acres.
Operations would be consistent with
current land use designations and
historic uses of LLNL land.
Aesthetics and Scenic Resources:
Construction activities would result in
temporary changes to the visual
appearance of both sites due to the
presence of cranes, construction
equipment, demolition, facilities in
various stages of construction/DD&D,
and possibly increased dust. The
Livermore Site would remain highly
developed with a campus-style or
business park appearance. Changes at
Site 300 would occur in the site interior
and would be consistent with the
existing character of the site.
Geology and Soils: Soil disturbances
would be minimal; no prime farmland
exists. Ongoing remediation efforts
would continue to improve soil
conditions at both sites. Major regional
faults exist, but no active faults underlie
the sites. There is no historical record of
surface rupturing or faulting, although
there is potential for surface faulting at
Site 300. Any new facility would be
designed and constructed to meet
seismic design criteria commensurate
with the risk category requirements.
Potential impacts from geologic hazards
(i.e., seismic events) are discussed
under ‘‘Accidents.’’
Water Resources: New facilities
would increase impervious surfaces,
which could increase stormwater runoff.
LLNL meets stormwater compliance
monitoring requirements and
implementation of a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan would
minimize any pollution that might leave
the site by stormwater. Ongoing
remediation efforts would continue to
improve groundwater conditions at both
sites. In accordance with 10 CFR part
1022, the DOE/NNSA prepared an
appendix to provide an analysis of the
potential impacts on floodplains and
wetlands from the No-Action
Alternative and Proposed Action. The
New North Entry would be located in
the north buffer zone and could
potentially affect floodplains. The
roadway for the New North Entry would
cross approximately 0.9 acres
(approximately 2 percent) of the 500year floodplain (critical action
floodplain) in the north buffer zone and
approximately 0.1 acres (approximately
0.4 percent) of the 100-year floodplain
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Notices
(base floodplain) along Arroyo Las
Positas. The proposed bridge would
span the Arroyo Las Positas and the
roadway would continue through
previously developed land onto the
Livermore Site. The New Fire Station, if
located near the North Entry, could
disturb approximately 0.7 acres
(approximately 1.6 percent) of the 500year floodplain (critical action
floodplain) but would not disturb any
acres of the 100-year floodplain (base
floodplain). The enhancements in Lake
Haussmann would not involve wetlands
or affect impoundment-waters. Even
with enhancements, Lake Haussmann
would continue to serve as a
conveyance channel.
Air Quality: Fugitive dust would be
generated during clearing, grading, and
other earth-moving operations.
Construction and operational emissions
would not: (1) result in a considerable
net increase (i.e., greater than the de
minimis thresholds) of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment; (2) expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations; (3) conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan; or (4) violate
any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation. Greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions would increase by
approximately 5,239 metric tons
annually compared to the No-Action
Alternative. These GHG emissions
associated with the Proposed Action
would represent 0.03 percent of the
State of California GHG emissions.
Radiological air emissions of tritium at
the Livermore Site were estimated to be
3,610 curies based on emissions limits.
There would be minimal radiological air
emissions at Site 300. Impacts
associated with radiological air
emissions are addressed in ‘‘Human
Health and Safety.’’ The estimated
annual dose to the maximally exposed
individual (MEI) at the Livermore Site
and Site 300 would remain well below
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) limit of 10 millirem
per year.
Noise: Although construction and
DD&D activities would cause temporary
noise impacts, most activities would be
confined to areas more than 500 feet
from the site property boundaries. Six
projects at the Livermore Site and four
at Site 300 would be constructed within
500 feet of a site boundary. However,
offsite noise impacts would be minimal.
Explosive testing noise impacts at Site
300 would be the same as for the NoAction Alternative. Explosive testing
conducted at the Contained Firing
Facility and on open firing tables at Site
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Feb 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
300 would be unchanged when
compared to current operations.
Additionally, with regard to explosive
testing, LLNL would maintain its selfimposed 126 dB impulse noise limits for
offsite populated areas.
Biological Resources: The net land
disturbance would be 52.5 acres
(Livermore Site) and 34.6 acres (Site
300). Construction would have no
appreciable impact on native vegetation,
plant species of concern, wetlands or
waters of the United States, viability of
federally or state-listed species, or
modification of United States Fish and
Wildlife Service-designated critical
habitat. Construction is not expected to
result in adverse modification of
USFWS-designated critical habitat at the
Livermore Site or Site 300. Operations
would be consistent with current
activities and would have no
appreciable impact on biological
resources. Potential impacts from
projects at the Livermore Site, Site 300,
and the Arroyo Mocho Pumping Station
would be minimized by conservation
measures, which would be developed
and implemented in consultation with
regulatory agencies.
Cultural and Paleontological
Resources: The probability of impacting
archaeological resources would be low
because any ground disturbing activities
would be reviewed for the potential for
effects prior to permit approval.
Archaeological and pre-historic sites
have been identified and recorded and
would continue to be avoided. Because
fossils and/or fossil remains have been
discovered at both sites, any excavations
have the potential to impact similar
fossils/fossil remains. Both sites have
undergone a comprehensive review to
identify significant historic buildings,
structures, and objects, and those that
were determined eligible for the
National Register have already been
mitigated and are no longer eligible. The
2012 comprehensive review of
architectural resources included those
resources constructed prior to 1990.
Therefore, buildings, structures, and
objects that were built after 1990 and
thus were not part of that
comprehensive review may become
eligible for listing on the National
Register. An updated comprehensive
review is planned consistent with the
evaluation approach to identify
significant (post-1990) historic
buildings, structures, and objects, that
was followed in 2007 and 2012.
Socioeconomics: Socioeconomic
impacts associated with construction
would be temporary and lower than
operational impacts. Once steady-state
operations are reached in 2035,
employment at LLNL is projected to
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12833
increase to 10,750 workers (10,344
workers at the Livermore Site and 406
workers at Site 300). This would
represent an increase of 1,410 workers
over the No-Action Alternative
workforce, resulting in an estimated 860
indirect jobs in the four-county region of
influence (ROI) workforce. Due to the
low potential for impacts on the ROI
population, operations by 2035 would
not affect fire protection, police
protection services, or medical services.
The number of school-age children
associated with the additional
workforce potentially migrating into the
ROI would be 908 children. The
increase in school enrollment would
represent 0.1 percent of the projected
2034–2035 school enrollment for the
ROI. This minimal increase in school
enrollment would have a negligible
effect on school services in the ROI.
Environmental Justice: No high and
adverse impacts from construction and
operation activities at LLNL are
expected. Consequently, there would be
no disproportionate and adverse
impacts to minority or low-income
populations. For routes involving offsite
shipments, modeling of all 888 potential
offsite shipments would yield a
bounding collective incident-free dose
to the general public of 24.7 person-rem,
with an associated increased risk of
0.015 latent cancer fatalities (LCF).
Impacts to the minority and low-income
populations along these routes would be
a fraction of the LCF risk presented
above and would not result in
disproportionate and adverse impacts to
minority or low-income populations.
Traffic and Transportation: By 2035,
employment at LLNL is projected to
increase by 1,410 workers over the NoAction Alternative workforce. If all
1,410 workers were to commute to the
Livermore Site (which is a bounding
assumption for the transportation
analysis), local traffic would increase by
an average of approximately 2.3 percent
(note: traffic on specific roads in the
vicinity of the Livermore Site would
increase by 1.6—3.2 percent). The
increase in traffic would not affect the
level-of-service on roads in the vicinity
of LLNL. The New North Entry to the
Livermore Site is expected to be
operational in approximately 2025. This
site entry would reduce the average
daily traffic (ADT) volumes on Vasco
Road and Greenville Road and increase
the ADT volume on Patterson Pass Road
in the vicinity of the Livermore Site.
The net effect would be a reduction in
traffic backups and delays in the
mornings on Vasco Road at the West
Gate entrance.
Radiological and Hazardous Material
Transportation: As a result of increased
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
12834
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Notices
operations and nonroutine shipments of
low-level radioactive waste (LLW)/
mixed LLW (MLLW) associated with
DD&D, there could be more total
shipments of radiological materials for
the Proposed Action compared to the
No-Action Alternative. Modeling all 888
potential offsite shipments results in
dose to transport-crews of 69.2 personrem per year (0.042 LCFs); incident-free
dose to the general public of 24.7
person-rem (0.015 LCFs); accident risk
to public of 2.9 × 10¥6 LCFs; and 0.038
traffic fatalities from accidents.
Infrastructure: Electricity use, natural
gas use, potable water use, and
wastewater generation are all projected
to increase at both sites. The onsite
distribution systems and the capacities
of utility providers are not expected to
be adversely impacted, however any
increase in water use at LLNL would
add to overall water demands and
supply issues in the region. NNSA will
continue to evaluate the feasibility and
implementation of water and energy
conservation measures at LLNL.
Waste Management and Materials
Management: Operations (including
construction and DD&D) would generate
a variety of wastes (including
radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and
sanitary) and would increase as a result
of normal operations. NNSA does not
expect additional waste associated with
the Proposed Action to be unique or
substantially different from the types of
waste already managed within LLNL,
although a larger proportion of DD&D
waste and construction debris is
expected. Although there could be
higher quantities of hazardous materials
used under the Proposed Action, NNSA
does not expect additional adverse
impacts from managing these materials.
Human Health and Safety: During
normal operations, facilities at LLNL
would release small quantities of
radioactive emissions to the
environment. In addition, skyshine from
the NIF would provide a dose to a
person standing at a public location
outside the fence line. The MEI dose
from the emissions and skyshine would
be 4.21 millirem per year, resulting in
an annual LCF risk of 0.0000025. This
is below the USEPA limit of 10 millirem
per year. As a comparison, background
radiation is 625 millirem per year. With
regard to workers, the average annual
dose to a radiological worker was
estimated to be 173.5 millirem per year.
This would result in an annual LCF risk
of 1 × 10¥4 (i.e., approximately 1 LCF
every 9,000 years).
Site Contamination and Remediation:
Remediation of groundwater and soil
contamination at both the Livermore
Site and Site 300 would continue.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Feb 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
NNSA complies with provisions
specified in the two Federal Facility
Agreements (FFA) entered into by
USEPA, DOE, the California EPA
Department of Health Services (now
Department of Toxic Substances
Control), and the San Francisco Bay and
Central Valley Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Any future remediation
actions would be conducted in
accordance with the FFA, and NNSA
did not propose any specific changes to
future remediation activities in the
SWEIS.
Accidents: NNSA analyzed
radiological, chemical, high explosives,
and biological accidents that could be
caused by events such as explosions,
fires, aircraft crashes, criticalities, and
earthquakes. None of the accidents
evaluated would cause a fatality to a
member of the public, with the
exception of an aircraft crash into
Building 625, which could cause a
population dose of 4,300 person-rem
within a 50-mile radius of the site (2.6
LCFs). Because that accident has an
annual probability of occurring of
approximately 6.3 × 10¥7, the risks of
an LCF from such an accident would be
1.6 × 10¥6 (i.e., 1 LCF every 610,000
years).
Intentional Destructive Acts (IDA):
NNSA prepared a Security Risk
Assessment (SRA) that analyzed
potential impacts of intentional
destructive acts at LLNL (e.g., sabotage,
terrorism). The SRA contains sensitive
information related to security concerns
and is not publicly releasable. The IDA
impacts and the SWEIS accident
impacts have similar consequences for
radioactive materials dispersal,
criticality events, chemicals, and
biological events.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
Considering the many environmental
facets of the two alternatives analyzed
in the LLNL SWEIS, and with
consideration to the long-term effects,
the No-Action Alternative is the
environmentally preferred alternative
because fewer adverse impacts would
result compared to the Proposed Action.
However, the No-Action Alternative
would not meet the purpose and need
for agency action.
Comments on the Final LLNL SWEIS
NNSA posted the Final LLNL SWEIS
on the NNSA NEPA Reading Room
website (www.energy.gov/nnsa/nnsanepa-reading-room) and published a
Notice of Availability in the Federal
Register (88 FR 75566, November 3,
2023). Hard copies of the Final LLNL
SWEIS were delivered to the City of
Livermore and Tracy public libraries.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
During the 30-day period after the
Notice of Availability, NNSA received
23 comment documents related to the
Final LLNL SWEIS. Of those 23
documents, 19 were part of an email
campaign and contained the same
comments. Four (4) unique documents
with comments were received. All of the
comment documents received are
included in the Administrative Record
for the LLNL SWEIS NEPA process. As
indicated below, NNSA considered all
of the comments contained in these
documents during the preparation of
this ROD, and provides the following
comment-responses:
1. Commenters stated that NNSA
inadequately responded to comments on
the Draft SWEIS requesting additional
alternatives and stated that the Final
SWEIS failed to analyze any of the
reasonable alternatives proposed by
commenters, such as expansion of
LLNL’s focus on climate change
adaptation and amelioration
technologies, nuclear non-proliferation,
environmental clean-up technologies,
alternative fuels, clean energy
technologies, battery development,
energy-grid efficiency, green building
technologies, and other science areas.
Response: The reasonable SWEIS
alternatives are those that NNSA
determined would meet the purpose
and need presented in Section 1.3 of the
Final SWEIS. Section 3.5 of the Final
SWEIS discusses other alternatives that
NNSA considered in developing this
SWEIS. Other alternatives were
considered as suggested by commenters
during the scoping process and/or
comment period for the Draft LLNL
SWEIS. As discussed in Section 3.5,
those alternatives, were eliminated from
detailed analysis because they would
not allow LLNL to fulfill its NNSA
mission requirements. NNSA believes
that comment-responses 6–A, 6–C, and
6–D in the Comment Response
Document (CRD) in Volume 3 of the
SWEIS adequately address this issue.
2. Commenters stated that plutonium
pit work at LLNL remains opaque and
requested that NNSA clarify the
relationship of plutonium operations to
expanded plutonium pit production.
Commenters cited concerns with
increasing the administrative limits for
plutonium at Building 235 and
increases in risk and plutonium
shipments.
Response: NNSA believes that
Chapter 2 and Appendix A of the Final
SWEIS provides sufficient descriptions
of the LLNL missions, programs, and
activities for a reader to understand that
LLNL conducts activities to meet
national security requirements to
maintain and enhance the safety,
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Notices
security, and effectiveness of the U.S.
nuclear weapons stockpile. To
accomplish its missions, LLNL conducts
plutonium-related activities. That has
been true for more than 70 years and is
expected to be true for the foreseeable
future. Plutonium and pit-related
activities are specifically discussed in
Chapter 2 and Appendix A of the Final
SWEIS. NNSA believes that increased
operations at LLNL, as represented by
the Proposed Action in this SWEIS, are
needed for LLNL to meet national
security requirements to maintain and
enhance the safety, security, and
effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear
weapons stockpile. The proposed
increase in the administrative limits for
plutonium at Building 235 would
maintain the existing facility limit of
‘‘less than Hazard Category-3’’ in
accordance with DOE–STD–1027
revisions approved for use at LLNL. The
potential impacts associated with
increasing these administrative limits
are addressed in Chapter 5 and
Appendix C of the Final SWEIS. NNSA
believes that comment-responses 1–B,
4–E, 9–A, 16–C, 19–A, and 20–F in the
CRD adequately address this issue.
3. Commenters stated that the USEPA
submitted comments on the Draft
SWEIS with specific recommendations,
most of which the NNSA disregarded.
Commenters specifically cited USEPA
recommendations related to: (a)
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) remedial actions; (b)
mitigation and best management
practices (BMP); (c) additional air
quality monitoring along site perimeters
at Site 300) to provide real time
information on criteria pollutants and
radiological constituents, and (d)
analysis of impacts to low-income or
minority populations that might be
disproportionately impacted by the
transportation of transuranic (TRU)
waste both along the route and near the
disposal sites, the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico.
Response: Comments from the USEPA
were specifically considered and
addressed by NNSA as evidenced by
comment-responses 24–A, 24–B–1, 24–
B–2, 24–C, 24–D, 24–E, 24–F, 24–G, 24–
H, 24–I, and 24–J in the CRD. NNSA
believes those responses adequately
address the issues and
recommendations submitted by the
USEPA. NNSA also notes the USEPA
review comments on the Final SWEIS,
stating that, ‘‘[USEPA] appreciates the
direct responses to our comments and
recommendations in the Final EIS.’’
(a) Ongoing remedial investigations
and cleanup activities for legacy
contamination of environmental media
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Feb 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
at LLNL fall under the CERCLA (42
U.S.C. 9601). NNSA complies with
provisions specified in Federal Facility
Agreements. As presented in the Final
SWEIS, NNSA is not proposing any new
CERCLA remedial actions and solutions
in the SWEIS. NNSA has an ongoing
Superfund cleanup program for
contaminated soil and groundwater
under the CERCLA process. The
CERCLA process addresses ongoing
remediation actions, prevention of
mobilization of contaminants, and
mitigations and are not repeated in this
SWEIS. The proposed new facilities and
DD&D activities would not change this
ongoing cleanup program. Additionally,
the CERCLA program is a public process
as well. Any changes to the CERCLA
program are negotiated with appropriate
regulatory agencies before
implementation.
(b) Section 5.19 of the Final SWEIS
contains information on mitigation
measures. Table 5–74 provides
examples of design features and
potential BMPs that could be utilized
for new projects at LLNL. Sections
5.19.1–5.19.12 discuss these features
and BMPs as applicable to the
environmental resources evaluated in
the SWEIS. More specific design
features and BMPs will be identified
and implemented during the project
planning phase for any new proposed
and approved work, and DD&D
activities. Engineering controls will be
employed to reduce potential impacts to
acceptable levels for protection of
human health and the environment.
(c) Air quality monitoring along site
perimeters of Site 300 is established
with concurrence from appropriate
regulatory agencies. NNSA believes the
air monitoring stations at Site 300 are
adequate and ensure regulatory
compliance. Surveillance monitors for
radioactive particulate, tritium, and at
some locations, beryllium, are well
established at the perimeter of both
Livermore Site and Site 300 and at offsite locations. While they are not ‘‘realtime,’’ a quick turnaround in basic
radionuclide analysis is achievable by
the analytical labs performing the
analysis. NNSA produces an Annual
Site Environmental Report that provides
details on surveillance monitoring.
LLNL does not exceed any regulatory
limits at surveillance locations.
(d) As described in comment response
15–B of the CRD, NNSA analyzed the
potential impacts (including accidents)
of transporting radioactive materials and
TRU waste from LLNL to disposal
facilities. As discussed in Section
5.11.3.2, under the Proposed Action,
modeling of all 888 potential offsite
shipments would yield a bounding
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12835
collective incident-free dose to the
general public of 24.7 person-rem, with
an associated increased risk of 0.015
LCF; and a bounding cumulative
increased risk of 2.9 × 10¥6 LCF to the
general public from accidents that result
in a container breach/release. Based on
the potential routes to the disposal sites,
impacts to the minority and low-income
populations would consist of a fraction
of the LCF risk presented above.
4. The USEPA recommends that
NNSA prepare additional NEPA
analyses where significant changed
conditions or new circumstances related
to site-specific project construction or
DD&D activities are found to have the
potential to violate any federal, state,
and local laws or regulatory limits, or
increase the potential for adverse
environmental and human health
impacts.
Response: NNSA agrees with the
USEPA recommendation and will
prepare NEPA analyses, as appropriate,
for site-specific project construction or
DD&D activities (that are not addressed
in, or exceed, the SWEIS analysis) in
accordance with the requirements of
NEPA, regulations promulgated by the
Council on Environmental Quality,
DOE’s NEPA implementing procedures
(10 CFR part 1021), and NNSA Policy
(NAP) 451.1.
5. The USEPA stated that it is not
clear where the Site 300 air quality
monitor is located and when monitoring
takes place. The USEPA requests that
the next National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
report, due June 30, 2024, detail this
information and include a map of Site
300.
Response: The radiological air
effluent sampling systems and locations
are provided in Chapter 4, Table 4–9. In
the next NESHAPs report, NNSA will
provide additional details on the Site
300 air quality monitoring and a map of
Site 300 showing the location of air
monitors. Air monitoring information is
also located in Chapter 4 and Appendix
A of the Annual Site Environmental
Report (ASER) at https://aser.llnl.gov.
6. With regard to per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the
USEPA recommends continued site
characterization and monitoring of
drinking water wells, groundwater and
soil and continued coordination with
the regional water quality control boards
and the State Department of Toxic
Substances Control to control the
mobilization of these contaminants and
mitigate impacts.
Response: NNSA agrees to continued
site characterization and monitoring of
drinking water wells, groundwater and
soil and continued coordination with
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
12836
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Notices
the regional water quality control boards
and the State Department of Toxic
Substances Control to control the
mobilization of contaminants and
mitigate impacts.
Decision
The continued operation of LLNL is
critical to NNSA’s Stockpile
Stewardship and Management Program,
to prevent the spread and use of nuclear
weapons worldwide, and to many other
areas that may impact national security
and global stability. NNSA has decided
to implement the Proposed Action. The
Proposed Action will enable NNSA to
fulfill its statutory missions and other
responsibilities, considering economic,
environmental, technical, and other
factors.
Basis for Decision
The Final SWEIS provided the NNSA
decision-maker with important
information regarding the potential
environmental impacts of alternatives
and options for satisfying the purpose
and need. In addition to environmental
information, NNSA also considered
public comments, statutory
responsibilities, strategic objectives,
technical needs, safeguards and
security, costs, and schedule in its
decision-making.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Mitigation Measures
No potential adverse impacts were
identified that will require additional
mitigation measures beyond those
required by regulations, permits, and
agreements or achieved through design
features or best management practices.
However, if mitigation measures above
and beyond those required by
regulations, permits, and agreements are
needed to reduce impacts during
implementation, they will be developed,
documented, and executed. Because no
new potential adverse impacts were
identified that will require additional
mitigation measures beyond those
required by regulation or achieved
through design features or best
management practices, NNSA does not
expect to prepare a Mitigation Action
Plan.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on February 8, 2024,
by Jill Hruby, Under Secretary for
Nuclear Security and Administrator,
NNSA, pursuant to delegated authority
from the Secretary of Energy. That
document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DOE. For
administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the
Office of the Federal Register, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Feb 16, 2024
Jkt 262001
undersigned DOE Federal Register
Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in
electronic format for publication, as an
official document of the Department of
Energy. This administrative process in
no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on February 14,
2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2024–03351 Filed 2–16–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2023–0098; FRL–10582–
10–OCSPP]
Certain New Chemicals or Significant
New Uses; Statements of Findings for
December 2023
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) requires EPA to publish in
the Federal Register a statement of its
findings after its review of certain TSCA
submissions when EPA makes a finding
that a new chemical substance or
significant new use is not likely to
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment. Such
statements apply to premanufacture
notices (PMNs), microbial commercial
activity notices (MCANs), and
significant new use notices (SNUNs)
submitted to EPA under TSCA. This
document presents statements of
findings made by EPA on such
submissions during the period from
December 1, 2023, to December 31,
2023.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2023–0098, is
available online at https://
www.regulations.gov or in-person at the
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket),
Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the OPPT
Docket is (202) 566–0280. For the latest
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
status information on EPA/DC services
and docket access, visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical information contact:
Rebecca Edelstein, New Chemical
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001;
telephone number: (202) 564–1667
email address: edelstein.rebecca@
epa.gov.
For general information contact: The
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422
South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY
14620; telephone number: (202) 554–
1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action provides information that
is directed to the public in general.
B. What action is the Agency taking?
This document lists the statements of
findings made by EPA after review of
submissions under TSCA section 5(a)
that certain new chemical substances or
significant new uses are not likely to
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment. This
document presents statements of
findings made by EPA during the
reporting period.
C. What is the Agency’s authority for
taking this action?
TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to
review a submission under TSCA
section 5(a) and make one of several
specific findings pertaining to whether
the substance may present unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the
environment. Among those potential
findings is that the chemical substance
or significant new use is not likely to
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment per TSCA
section 5(a)(3)(C).
TSCA section 5(g) requires EPA to
publish in the Federal Register a
statement of its findings after its review
of a submission under TSCA section
5(a) when EPA makes a finding that a
new chemical substance or significant
new use is not likely to present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment. Such statements apply
to PMNs, MCANs, and SNUNs
submitted to EPA under TSCA section
5.
Anyone who plans to manufacture
(which includes import) a new chemical
substance for a non-exempt commercial
purpose and any manufacturer or
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12831-12836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03351]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration
Record of Decision for the Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact
Statement for Continued Operation of the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory
AGENCY: National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-
autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), is
issuing this Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Site-Wide
Environmental Impact Statement (SWEIS) for Continued Operation of the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California (Final LLNL
SWEIS) (DOE/EIS-0547). NNSA prepared the Final LLNL SWEIS to analyze
the potential environmental impacts associated with reasonable
alternatives for continuing LLNL operations and foreseeable new and/or
modified operations and facilities for approximately the next 15 years.
The SWEIS analyzes two alternatives: No-Action Alternative and Proposed
Action. In this ROD, NNSA announces its decision to implement the
Proposed Action.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this ROD or
the LLNL SWEIS, contact: Thomas Grim, National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Document Manager, National Nuclear Security Administration,
Livermore Field Office, P.O. Box 808, Livermore, CA 94551; via email at
[email protected], or by phone at (833)778-0508. This ROD, the
LLNL SWEIS, and related NEPA documents are available at www.energy.gov/nnsa/nnsa-nepa-reading-room.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NNSA is responsible for meeting the national security
requirements established by the President and Congress to maintain and
enhance the safety, reliability, and performance of the U.S. nuclear
weapons stockpile. The continued operation of LLNL is critical to
NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program, to prevent the
spread and use of nuclear weapons worldwide, and to many other areas
that may impact national security and global stability (50 U.S.C.
2521).
LLNL is a federally funded research and development center that
conducts research for the U.S. Government in accordance with 48 CFR
35.017. LLNL has been in existence since 1952, employs approximately
8,000 people (employees and contractors), and has a current annual
budget of approximately $3 billion.
LLNL consists of two federally owned sites: an 821-acre site in
Livermore, California (Livermore Site), and a 7,000-acre experimental
test site (Site 300) southeast of the Livermore Site between Livermore
and Tracy, California. Most LLNL operations are located at the
Livermore Site, which is situated about 50 miles east of San Francisco
in southeastern Alameda County. Site 300 is primarily a test site for
high explosives and non-nuclear weapons components; it is located about
15 miles southeast of Livermore in the hills of the Diablo Range.
LLNL's primary responsibility is ensuring the safety, reliability, and
performance of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. However, LLNL's
mission is broader than stockpile stewardship, as dangers ranging from
nuclear proliferation and terrorism to biosecurity and climate change
threaten national security and global stability. More than eighteen
(18) years have passed since the publication of the 2005 Final Site-
wide Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and Supplemental Stockpile Stewardship
and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (2005 LLNL
SWEIS). Because of proposed plans for new facilities, demolition of
older facilities, enhanced and modernized site utilities projects, as
well as needed modifications/upgrades of existing facilities to ensure
ongoing safe operations, NNSA determined that it was appropriate to
update the previous 2005 LLNL SWEIS analysis.
Under the No-Action Alternative, NNSA would continue current
facility operations throughout LLNL in support of assigned missions.
The No-Action
[[Page 12832]]
Alternative includes previously approved construction of new
facilities; modernization, upgrade, and utility projects; and
decontamination, decommission, and demolition (DD&D) of excess and
aging facilities.
The Proposed Action in the 2023 Final LLNL SWEIS includes an
increase in current facility operations or enhanced operations that
would require new or modified facilities over the next 15 years. The
Proposed Action also includes the scope of operations, facility
construction, and DD&D under the No-Action Alternative through 2022.
Continued re-investment would allow LLNL to meet mission deliverables
and sustain science, technology, and engineering excellence to meet
future mission requirements. In addition to the No-Action Alternative,
the Proposed Action includes approximately 75 new projects, totaling
approximately 3.3 million square feet, from 2023-2035. NNSA also
proposes 20 types of modernization/upgrade/utility projects, most
involving several facilities. Under the Proposed Action, about 150
facilities, totaling approximately 1,170,000 square feet would undergo
DD&D. The Proposed Action also includes operational changes that would
increase the tritium emissions limits in the National Ignition Facility
(NIF) (Building 581) and the Tritium Facility (Building 331), and
decrease the administrative limit for fuels-grade-equivalent plutonium
in the Superblock (Building 332). In addition, the Proposed Action
increases the administrative limits for plutonium-239 at Building 235,
and increases the NIF administrative limits for plutonium-239 and
tritium. The administrative limit changes for both Building 235 and the
NIF would maintain the existing facility characterization of ``less
than Hazard Category-3'' in accordance with DOE Standard (DOE-STD-1027)
revisions approved for use at LLNL.
NEPA Process for This ROD
NNSA has prepared this ROD in accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of
the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, as amended), regulations promulgated by
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing NEPA (40
CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR
part 1021). This ROD is based on Federal law and NNSA's mission, and
information and analysis in the Final LLNL SWEIS including public
comments received. The Draft LLNL SWEIS was distributed electronically
for review and comment as part of the public participation process.
During the comment period, NNSA held two in-person hearings and one
virtual hearing to receive comments on the Draft LLNL SWEIS. At the in-
person hearings, an open house preceded the formal public comment
period. During the open house, the public was invited to engage with
NNSA personnel within their areas of expertise and ask questions about
the Draft SWEIS. The in-person and virtual hearings were attended by
approximately 70 persons and 29 speakers provided comments. These
comments were recorded in formal transcripts. In addition to the
comments during the public hearings, approximately 84 comment documents
(including 41 comment documents submitted as an email campaign) were
received from individuals, interested groups, and Federal, State, and
local agencies during the comment period on the Draft LLNL SWEIS.
The majority of the comments received on the Draft SWEIS focused on
the NEPA process, policy issues, and the scope of the Proposed Action.
Scans of those comment documents are located in Volume 3 (Comment
Response Document [CRD]) of the Final LLNL SWEIS. In addition, comments
from the three public hearings are included in the scanned transcripts,
which are also located in Volume 3. All comments received were treated
equally by NNSA. Chapter 2 of Volume 3 contains summaries of all
comments received on the LLNL Draft SWEIS as well as NNSA's responses
to those comments. After considering all comments and modifying the
Draft SWEIS, NNSA completed the Final LLNL SWEIS. NNSA posted the Final
LLNL SWEIS on the NNSA NEPA Reading Room website (www.energy.gov/nnsa/nnsa-nepa-reading-room) and published a Notice of Availability in the
Federal Register (88 FR 75566, November 3, 2023). Hard copies of the
Final LLNL SWEIS were delivered to the City of Livermore and Tracy
public libraries. During the 30-day period after the Notice of
Availability, NNSA received 24 comment documents related to the Final
LLNL SWEIS. This ROD includes NNSA's responses to those comments.
Summary of Impacts
Brief summaries of impacts are provided below for each resource
area:
Land Use: At the Livermore Site total land disturbance would be
85.5 acres. About 26.5 acres of land would be reclaimed as a result of
DD&D; 2.5 acres restored for cooling tower pipeline; and 4 acres of
laydown areas would also be restored. Net change in land disturbance
would be 52.5 acres. Removal of limited area fencing, expanded bicycle
network, expanded pedestrian walkways, rebalanced vehicle parking, and
Lake Haussmann enhancements would create more green space by 2035. At
Site 300, land disturbance would be 36 acres, and 0.4 acres of land
would be reclaimed as a result of DD&D, and 1 acre of laydown areas
would be restored. Net change in land disturbance would be 34.6 acres.
Operations would be consistent with current land use designations and
historic uses of LLNL land.
Aesthetics and Scenic Resources: Construction activities would
result in temporary changes to the visual appearance of both sites due
to the presence of cranes, construction equipment, demolition,
facilities in various stages of construction/DD&D, and possibly
increased dust. The Livermore Site would remain highly developed with a
campus-style or business park appearance. Changes at Site 300 would
occur in the site interior and would be consistent with the existing
character of the site.
Geology and Soils: Soil disturbances would be minimal; no prime
farmland exists. Ongoing remediation efforts would continue to improve
soil conditions at both sites. Major regional faults exist, but no
active faults underlie the sites. There is no historical record of
surface rupturing or faulting, although there is potential for surface
faulting at Site 300. Any new facility would be designed and
constructed to meet seismic design criteria commensurate with the risk
category requirements. Potential impacts from geologic hazards (i.e.,
seismic events) are discussed under ``Accidents.''
Water Resources: New facilities would increase impervious surfaces,
which could increase stormwater runoff. LLNL meets stormwater
compliance monitoring requirements and implementation of a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan would minimize any pollution that might leave
the site by stormwater. Ongoing remediation efforts would continue to
improve groundwater conditions at both sites. In accordance with 10 CFR
part 1022, the DOE/NNSA prepared an appendix to provide an analysis of
the potential impacts on floodplains and wetlands from the No-Action
Alternative and Proposed Action. The New North Entry would be located
in the north buffer zone and could potentially affect floodplains. The
roadway for the New North Entry would cross approximately 0.9 acres
(approximately 2 percent) of the 500-year floodplain (critical action
floodplain) in the north buffer zone and approximately 0.1 acres
(approximately 0.4 percent) of the 100-year floodplain
[[Page 12833]]
(base floodplain) along Arroyo Las Positas. The proposed bridge would
span the Arroyo Las Positas and the roadway would continue through
previously developed land onto the Livermore Site. The New Fire
Station, if located near the North Entry, could disturb approximately
0.7 acres (approximately 1.6 percent) of the 500-year floodplain
(critical action floodplain) but would not disturb any acres of the
100-year floodplain (base floodplain). The enhancements in Lake
Haussmann would not involve wetlands or affect impoundment-waters. Even
with enhancements, Lake Haussmann would continue to serve as a
conveyance channel.
Air Quality: Fugitive dust would be generated during clearing,
grading, and other earth-moving operations. Construction and
operational emissions would not: (1) result in a considerable net
increase (i.e., greater than the de minimis thresholds) of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment; (2) expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; (3)
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan; or (4) violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would increase by approximately 5,239
metric tons annually compared to the No-Action Alternative. These GHG
emissions associated with the Proposed Action would represent 0.03
percent of the State of California GHG emissions. Radiological air
emissions of tritium at the Livermore Site were estimated to be 3,610
curies based on emissions limits. There would be minimal radiological
air emissions at Site 300. Impacts associated with radiological air
emissions are addressed in ``Human Health and Safety.'' The estimated
annual dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) at the Livermore
Site and Site 300 would remain well below the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) limit of 10 millirem per year.
Noise: Although construction and DD&D activities would cause
temporary noise impacts, most activities would be confined to areas
more than 500 feet from the site property boundaries. Six projects at
the Livermore Site and four at Site 300 would be constructed within 500
feet of a site boundary. However, offsite noise impacts would be
minimal. Explosive testing noise impacts at Site 300 would be the same
as for the No-Action Alternative. Explosive testing conducted at the
Contained Firing Facility and on open firing tables at Site 300 would
be unchanged when compared to current operations. Additionally, with
regard to explosive testing, LLNL would maintain its self-imposed 126
dB impulse noise limits for offsite populated areas.
Biological Resources: The net land disturbance would be 52.5 acres
(Livermore Site) and 34.6 acres (Site 300). Construction would have no
appreciable impact on native vegetation, plant species of concern,
wetlands or waters of the United States, viability of federally or
state-listed species, or modification of United States Fish and
Wildlife Service-designated critical habitat. Construction is not
expected to result in adverse modification of USFWS-designated critical
habitat at the Livermore Site or Site 300. Operations would be
consistent with current activities and would have no appreciable impact
on biological resources. Potential impacts from projects at the
Livermore Site, Site 300, and the Arroyo Mocho Pumping Station would be
minimized by conservation measures, which would be developed and
implemented in consultation with regulatory agencies.
Cultural and Paleontological Resources: The probability of
impacting archaeological resources would be low because any ground
disturbing activities would be reviewed for the potential for effects
prior to permit approval. Archaeological and pre-historic sites have
been identified and recorded and would continue to be avoided. Because
fossils and/or fossil remains have been discovered at both sites, any
excavations have the potential to impact similar fossils/fossil
remains. Both sites have undergone a comprehensive review to identify
significant historic buildings, structures, and objects, and those that
were determined eligible for the National Register have already been
mitigated and are no longer eligible. The 2012 comprehensive review of
architectural resources included those resources constructed prior to
1990. Therefore, buildings, structures, and objects that were built
after 1990 and thus were not part of that comprehensive review may
become eligible for listing on the National Register. An updated
comprehensive review is planned consistent with the evaluation approach
to identify significant (post-1990) historic buildings, structures, and
objects, that was followed in 2007 and 2012.
Socioeconomics: Socioeconomic impacts associated with construction
would be temporary and lower than operational impacts. Once steady-
state operations are reached in 2035, employment at LLNL is projected
to increase to 10,750 workers (10,344 workers at the Livermore Site and
406 workers at Site 300). This would represent an increase of 1,410
workers over the No-Action Alternative workforce, resulting in an
estimated 860 indirect jobs in the four-county region of influence
(ROI) workforce. Due to the low potential for impacts on the ROI
population, operations by 2035 would not affect fire protection, police
protection services, or medical services. The number of school-age
children associated with the additional workforce potentially migrating
into the ROI would be 908 children. The increase in school enrollment
would represent 0.1 percent of the projected 2034-2035 school
enrollment for the ROI. This minimal increase in school enrollment
would have a negligible effect on school services in the ROI.
Environmental Justice: No high and adverse impacts from
construction and operation activities at LLNL are expected.
Consequently, there would be no disproportionate and adverse impacts to
minority or low-income populations. For routes involving offsite
shipments, modeling of all 888 potential offsite shipments would yield
a bounding collective incident-free dose to the general public of 24.7
person-rem, with an associated increased risk of 0.015 latent cancer
fatalities (LCF). Impacts to the minority and low-income populations
along these routes would be a fraction of the LCF risk presented above
and would not result in disproportionate and adverse impacts to
minority or low-income populations.
Traffic and Transportation: By 2035, employment at LLNL is
projected to increase by 1,410 workers over the No-Action Alternative
workforce. If all 1,410 workers were to commute to the Livermore Site
(which is a bounding assumption for the transportation analysis), local
traffic would increase by an average of approximately 2.3 percent
(note: traffic on specific roads in the vicinity of the Livermore Site
would increase by 1.6--3.2 percent). The increase in traffic would not
affect the level-of-service on roads in the vicinity of LLNL. The New
North Entry to the Livermore Site is expected to be operational in
approximately 2025. This site entry would reduce the average daily
traffic (ADT) volumes on Vasco Road and Greenville Road and increase
the ADT volume on Patterson Pass Road in the vicinity of the Livermore
Site. The net effect would be a reduction in traffic backups and delays
in the mornings on Vasco Road at the West Gate entrance.
Radiological and Hazardous Material Transportation: As a result of
increased
[[Page 12834]]
operations and nonroutine shipments of low-level radioactive waste
(LLW)/mixed LLW (MLLW) associated with DD&D, there could be more total
shipments of radiological materials for the Proposed Action compared to
the No-Action Alternative. Modeling all 888 potential offsite shipments
results in dose to transport-crews of 69.2 person-rem per year (0.042
LCFs); incident-free dose to the general public of 24.7 person-rem
(0.015 LCFs); accident risk to public of 2.9 x 10-6 LCFs;
and 0.038 traffic fatalities from accidents.
Infrastructure: Electricity use, natural gas use, potable water
use, and wastewater generation are all projected to increase at both
sites. The onsite distribution systems and the capacities of utility
providers are not expected to be adversely impacted, however any
increase in water use at LLNL would add to overall water demands and
supply issues in the region. NNSA will continue to evaluate the
feasibility and implementation of water and energy conservation
measures at LLNL.
Waste Management and Materials Management: Operations (including
construction and DD&D) would generate a variety of wastes (including
radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and sanitary) and would increase as a
result of normal operations. NNSA does not expect additional waste
associated with the Proposed Action to be unique or substantially
different from the types of waste already managed within LLNL, although
a larger proportion of DD&D waste and construction debris is expected.
Although there could be higher quantities of hazardous materials used
under the Proposed Action, NNSA does not expect additional adverse
impacts from managing these materials.
Human Health and Safety: During normal operations, facilities at
LLNL would release small quantities of radioactive emissions to the
environment. In addition, skyshine from the NIF would provide a dose to
a person standing at a public location outside the fence line. The MEI
dose from the emissions and skyshine would be 4.21 millirem per year,
resulting in an annual LCF risk of 0.0000025. This is below the USEPA
limit of 10 millirem per year. As a comparison, background radiation is
625 millirem per year. With regard to workers, the average annual dose
to a radiological worker was estimated to be 173.5 millirem per year.
This would result in an annual LCF risk of 1 x 10-4 (i.e.,
approximately 1 LCF every 9,000 years).
Site Contamination and Remediation: Remediation of groundwater and
soil contamination at both the Livermore Site and Site 300 would
continue. NNSA complies with provisions specified in the two Federal
Facility Agreements (FFA) entered into by USEPA, DOE, the California
EPA Department of Health Services (now Department of Toxic Substances
Control), and the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board. Any future remediation actions would be
conducted in accordance with the FFA, and NNSA did not propose any
specific changes to future remediation activities in the SWEIS.
Accidents: NNSA analyzed radiological, chemical, high explosives,
and biological accidents that could be caused by events such as
explosions, fires, aircraft crashes, criticalities, and earthquakes.
None of the accidents evaluated would cause a fatality to a member of
the public, with the exception of an aircraft crash into Building 625,
which could cause a population dose of 4,300 person-rem within a 50-
mile radius of the site (2.6 LCFs). Because that accident has an annual
probability of occurring of approximately 6.3 x 10-7, the
risks of an LCF from such an accident would be 1.6 x 10-6
(i.e., 1 LCF every 610,000 years).
Intentional Destructive Acts (IDA): NNSA prepared a Security Risk
Assessment (SRA) that analyzed potential impacts of intentional
destructive acts at LLNL (e.g., sabotage, terrorism). The SRA contains
sensitive information related to security concerns and is not publicly
releasable. The IDA impacts and the SWEIS accident impacts have similar
consequences for radioactive materials dispersal, criticality events,
chemicals, and biological events.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
Considering the many environmental facets of the two alternatives
analyzed in the LLNL SWEIS, and with consideration to the long-term
effects, the No-Action Alternative is the environmentally preferred
alternative because fewer adverse impacts would result compared to the
Proposed Action. However, the No-Action Alternative would not meet the
purpose and need for agency action.
Comments on the Final LLNL SWEIS
NNSA posted the Final LLNL SWEIS on the NNSA NEPA Reading Room
website (www.energy.gov/nnsa/nnsa-nepa-reading-room) and published a
Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (88 FR 75566, November
3, 2023). Hard copies of the Final LLNL SWEIS were delivered to the
City of Livermore and Tracy public libraries. During the 30-day period
after the Notice of Availability, NNSA received 23 comment documents
related to the Final LLNL SWEIS. Of those 23 documents, 19 were part of
an email campaign and contained the same comments. Four (4) unique
documents with comments were received. All of the comment documents
received are included in the Administrative Record for the LLNL SWEIS
NEPA process. As indicated below, NNSA considered all of the comments
contained in these documents during the preparation of this ROD, and
provides the following comment-responses:
1. Commenters stated that NNSA inadequately responded to comments
on the Draft SWEIS requesting additional alternatives and stated that
the Final SWEIS failed to analyze any of the reasonable alternatives
proposed by commenters, such as expansion of LLNL's focus on climate
change adaptation and amelioration technologies, nuclear non-
proliferation, environmental clean-up technologies, alternative fuels,
clean energy technologies, battery development, energy-grid efficiency,
green building technologies, and other science areas.
Response: The reasonable SWEIS alternatives are those that NNSA
determined would meet the purpose and need presented in Section 1.3 of
the Final SWEIS. Section 3.5 of the Final SWEIS discusses other
alternatives that NNSA considered in developing this SWEIS. Other
alternatives were considered as suggested by commenters during the
scoping process and/or comment period for the Draft LLNL SWEIS. As
discussed in Section 3.5, those alternatives, were eliminated from
detailed analysis because they would not allow LLNL to fulfill its NNSA
mission requirements. NNSA believes that comment-responses 6-A, 6-C,
and 6-D in the Comment Response Document (CRD) in Volume 3 of the SWEIS
adequately address this issue.
2. Commenters stated that plutonium pit work at LLNL remains opaque
and requested that NNSA clarify the relationship of plutonium
operations to expanded plutonium pit production. Commenters cited
concerns with increasing the administrative limits for plutonium at
Building 235 and increases in risk and plutonium shipments.
Response: NNSA believes that Chapter 2 and Appendix A of the Final
SWEIS provides sufficient descriptions of the LLNL missions, programs,
and activities for a reader to understand that LLNL conducts activities
to meet national security requirements to maintain and enhance the
safety,
[[Page 12835]]
security, and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. To
accomplish its missions, LLNL conducts plutonium-related activities.
That has been true for more than 70 years and is expected to be true
for the foreseeable future. Plutonium and pit-related activities are
specifically discussed in Chapter 2 and Appendix A of the Final SWEIS.
NNSA believes that increased operations at LLNL, as represented by the
Proposed Action in this SWEIS, are needed for LLNL to meet national
security requirements to maintain and enhance the safety, security, and
effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. The proposed
increase in the administrative limits for plutonium at Building 235
would maintain the existing facility limit of ``less than Hazard
Category-3'' in accordance with DOE-STD-1027 revisions approved for use
at LLNL. The potential impacts associated with increasing these
administrative limits are addressed in Chapter 5 and Appendix C of the
Final SWEIS. NNSA believes that comment-responses 1-B, 4-E, 9-A, 16-C,
19-A, and 20-F in the CRD adequately address this issue.
3. Commenters stated that the USEPA submitted comments on the Draft
SWEIS with specific recommendations, most of which the NNSA
disregarded. Commenters specifically cited USEPA recommendations
related to: (a) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) remedial actions; (b) mitigation and best
management practices (BMP); (c) additional air quality monitoring along
site perimeters at Site 300) to provide real time information on
criteria pollutants and radiological constituents, and (d) analysis of
impacts to low-income or minority populations that might be
disproportionately impacted by the transportation of transuranic (TRU)
waste both along the route and near the disposal sites, the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico.
Response: Comments from the USEPA were specifically considered and
addressed by NNSA as evidenced by comment-responses 24-A, 24-B-1, 24-B-
2, 24-C, 24-D, 24-E, 24-F, 24-G, 24-H, 24-I, and 24-J in the CRD. NNSA
believes those responses adequately address the issues and
recommendations submitted by the USEPA. NNSA also notes the USEPA
review comments on the Final SWEIS, stating that, ``[USEPA] appreciates
the direct responses to our comments and recommendations in the Final
EIS.''
(a) Ongoing remedial investigations and cleanup activities for
legacy contamination of environmental media at LLNL fall under the
CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9601). NNSA complies with provisions specified in
Federal Facility Agreements. As presented in the Final SWEIS, NNSA is
not proposing any new CERCLA remedial actions and solutions in the
SWEIS. NNSA has an ongoing Superfund cleanup program for contaminated
soil and groundwater under the CERCLA process. The CERCLA process
addresses ongoing remediation actions, prevention of mobilization of
contaminants, and mitigations and are not repeated in this SWEIS. The
proposed new facilities and DD&D activities would not change this
ongoing cleanup program. Additionally, the CERCLA program is a public
process as well. Any changes to the CERCLA program are negotiated with
appropriate regulatory agencies before implementation.
(b) Section 5.19 of the Final SWEIS contains information on
mitigation measures. Table 5-74 provides examples of design features
and potential BMPs that could be utilized for new projects at LLNL.
Sections 5.19.1-5.19.12 discuss these features and BMPs as applicable
to the environmental resources evaluated in the SWEIS. More specific
design features and BMPs will be identified and implemented during the
project planning phase for any new proposed and approved work, and DD&D
activities. Engineering controls will be employed to reduce potential
impacts to acceptable levels for protection of human health and the
environment.
(c) Air quality monitoring along site perimeters of Site 300 is
established with concurrence from appropriate regulatory agencies. NNSA
believes the air monitoring stations at Site 300 are adequate and
ensure regulatory compliance. Surveillance monitors for radioactive
particulate, tritium, and at some locations, beryllium, are well
established at the perimeter of both Livermore Site and Site 300 and at
off-site locations. While they are not ``real-time,'' a quick
turnaround in basic radionuclide analysis is achievable by the
analytical labs performing the analysis. NNSA produces an Annual Site
Environmental Report that provides details on surveillance monitoring.
LLNL does not exceed any regulatory limits at surveillance locations.
(d) As described in comment response 15-B of the CRD, NNSA analyzed
the potential impacts (including accidents) of transporting radioactive
materials and TRU waste from LLNL to disposal facilities. As discussed
in Section 5.11.3.2, under the Proposed Action, modeling of all 888
potential offsite shipments would yield a bounding collective incident-
free dose to the general public of 24.7 person-rem, with an associated
increased risk of 0.015 LCF; and a bounding cumulative increased risk
of 2.9 x 10-6 LCF to the general public from accidents that
result in a container breach/release. Based on the potential routes to
the disposal sites, impacts to the minority and low-income populations
would consist of a fraction of the LCF risk presented above.
4. The USEPA recommends that NNSA prepare additional NEPA analyses
where significant changed conditions or new circumstances related to
site-specific project construction or DD&D activities are found to have
the potential to violate any federal, state, and local laws or
regulatory limits, or increase the potential for adverse environmental
and human health impacts.
Response: NNSA agrees with the USEPA recommendation and will
prepare NEPA analyses, as appropriate, for site-specific project
construction or DD&D activities (that are not addressed in, or exceed,
the SWEIS analysis) in accordance with the requirements of NEPA,
regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality, DOE's
NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR part 1021), and NNSA Policy (NAP)
451.1.
5. The USEPA stated that it is not clear where the Site 300 air
quality monitor is located and when monitoring takes place. The USEPA
requests that the next National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) report, due June 30, 2024, detail this information
and include a map of Site 300.
Response: The radiological air effluent sampling systems and
locations are provided in Chapter 4, Table 4-9. In the next NESHAPs
report, NNSA will provide additional details on the Site 300 air
quality monitoring and a map of Site 300 showing the location of air
monitors. Air monitoring information is also located in Chapter 4 and
Appendix A of the Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) at https://aser.llnl.gov.
6. With regard to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the
USEPA recommends continued site characterization and monitoring of
drinking water wells, groundwater and soil and continued coordination
with the regional water quality control boards and the State Department
of Toxic Substances Control to control the mobilization of these
contaminants and mitigate impacts.
Response: NNSA agrees to continued site characterization and
monitoring of drinking water wells, groundwater and soil and continued
coordination with
[[Page 12836]]
the regional water quality control boards and the State Department of
Toxic Substances Control to control the mobilization of contaminants
and mitigate impacts.
Decision
The continued operation of LLNL is critical to NNSA's Stockpile
Stewardship and Management Program, to prevent the spread and use of
nuclear weapons worldwide, and to many other areas that may impact
national security and global stability. NNSA has decided to implement
the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action will enable NNSA to fulfill
its statutory missions and other responsibilities, considering
economic, environmental, technical, and other factors.
Basis for Decision
The Final SWEIS provided the NNSA decision-maker with important
information regarding the potential environmental impacts of
alternatives and options for satisfying the purpose and need. In
addition to environmental information, NNSA also considered public
comments, statutory responsibilities, strategic objectives, technical
needs, safeguards and security, costs, and schedule in its decision-
making.
Mitigation Measures
No potential adverse impacts were identified that will require
additional mitigation measures beyond those required by regulations,
permits, and agreements or achieved through design features or best
management practices. However, if mitigation measures above and beyond
those required by regulations, permits, and agreements are needed to
reduce impacts during implementation, they will be developed,
documented, and executed. Because no new potential adverse impacts were
identified that will require additional mitigation measures beyond
those required by regulation or achieved through design features or
best management practices, NNSA does not expect to prepare a Mitigation
Action Plan.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 8,
2024, by Jill Hruby, Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and
Administrator, NNSA, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance
with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on February 14, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2024-03351 Filed 2-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
