Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a separately organized semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), announces the availability of the Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada (Draft SWEIS, DOE/EIS-0426D) for public review, as well as the locations, dates and times for public hearings. The Draft SWEIS for the continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other NNSA-managed sites in Nevada, including the Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) on Nellis Air Force Base, the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), and the Tonopah Test Range (TTR) on the U.S. Air Force Nevada Test and Training Range, analyzes the potential environmental impacts for three alternatives: No Action Alternative, Expanded Operations Alternative and Reduced Operations Alternative. Each alternative comprises current and reasonably foreseeable activities at the NNSS and the three offsite locations. The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations allow an agency to identify its preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in a draft EIS (40 CFR 1502.14[e]). NNSA has not currently identified a preferred alternative; however, a preferred alternative will be identified in the Final SWEIS. The U.S. Air Force, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and Nye County, Nevada, are cooperating agencies in the preparation of this Draft SWEIS. In addition, the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations, which include representatives from 17 Tribes and organizations, participated in its preparation.
Record of Decision for the Continued Operation of the Y-12 National Security Complex
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this Record of Decision (ROD) for the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee based on information and analyses contained in the Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Y-12 National Security Complex, DOE/EIS-0387 (Y-12 Final SWEIS, Y-12 SWEIS or 2011 Y-12 SWEIS) issued on March 4, 2011; comments on the Draft and Final Y-12 SWEIS; and other factors, including costs, security considerations and the missions of NNSA. The 2011 Y-12 SWEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts for ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future operations and activities at Y-12, including alternatives for changes to site infrastructure and levels of operation. Five alternatives are analyzed in this Y-12 SWEIS: (1) No Action Alternative (maintain the status quo); (2) Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) Alternative; (3) Upgrade- in-Place Alternative; (4) Capability-sized UPF Alternative; and (5) No Net Production/Capability-sized UPF Alternative. Both the Draft and the Y-12 Final SWEISs identified the Capability-sized UPF Alternative (Alternative 4) as NNSA's preferred alternative. NNSA has decided to select Alternative 4, to continue operation of Y-12, and to construct and operate one new facilitya Capability-sized UPF. A separate decision may be made at a later date regarding whether to construct and operate a Complex Command Center (CCC).
Proposed Agency Information Collection
The Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on a proposed collection of information that DOE is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.