• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for nuclear weapons research and design, as well as other energy research and development. DOE's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), Livermore undertake research and development missions established by the Congress and the President. To implement these research and development missions, continued and increased LLNL and SNL, Livermore operations are necessary.

The LLNL mission is to serve as a national resource of scientific, technical, and engineering capability with a special focus on national security. This mission includes research and development, strategic defense, arms control and treaty verification technology, energy, the environment, biomedicine, the economy, and education.

Although the primary mission of SNL, Livermore is national security, with principal emphasis on development and engineering of non-nuclear systems and components associated with nuclear weapons, SNL, Livermore has evolved into a multiprogram laboratory undertaking a wide variety of research and development activities. These activities range from national security issues to support of the national energy program.

DOE recognizes that in recent years there has been a significant change in the world's political environment. In scoping this EIS/EIR, DOE considered whether or not to include in the proposed action or the alternatives, a change to the basic mission of the Laboratories as currently established by Congress and the President. Indeed, in late 1991, the Secretary of Energy chartered an Advisory Board Task Force to begin to examine the future activities of the national laboratories, including LLNL and SNL, Livermore. Comprised of non-DOE personnel with extensive knowledge of energy and defense issues, the Task Force recommended that in addition to the Laboratories' continued activities in energy and defense, capacities in science and technology also be brought to bear on the environmental cleanup of DOE facilities. While the Secretary can encourage the evolution of the agency toward a new set of missions—in part developed by independent task forces and other citizen recommendations—any change to DOE's missions must come from the President and Congress.

The goals of an agency, as defined by its enabling legislation, determine the universe of the proposed action and the reasonable alternatives. Although, as described below, DOE has initiated an effort to determine in the long term how the National Laboratories capabilities can best be employed to serve the Nation's research needs, that effort has not yet reached the point of formulating any specific proposals for consideration by Congress and the President. Furthermore, currently there are no specific proposals by Congress or the President for any changes in DOE's missions. Thus, at the present time, the alternative of excluding all nuclear weapons research and design activities and replacing them with other non-nuclear weapons activities, as suggested by many commentors, is too speculative to be meaningfully evaluated. The scope of this EIS/EIR, therefore, must necessarily be tied to the evaluations of alternative ways of achieving DOE's currently mandated missions including its nuclear weapons mission.

Nevertheless, DOE is considering what activities necessary to support DOE's nuclear weapons mission should be carried out at LLNL and SNL, Livermore. The Secretary of Energy has proposed to reconfigure the nuclear weapons complex to be smaller, less diverse, and more economical to operate. As part of this proposal DOE is examining whether certain weapons research, development, and testing activities now taking place at the National Laboratories should be consolidated. DOE is preparing a programmatic EIS on its reconfiguration proposal. The Reconfiguration PEIS will address the long-term mission of LLNL and SNL, Livermore; in contrast, this EIS/EIR addresses the near-term continued operation of LLNL and SNL, Livermore. The focus of possible new long-term missions cannot be addressed until after completion of the Reconfiguration PEIS. Therefore, identification and description of new missions for LLNL and SNL, Livermore and analysis of associated environmental effects would be highly speculative and beyond the scope of this EIS/EIR. However, this document is expected to facilitate the environmental assessment of future changes in missions or activities. Such changes would be reviewed against this EIS/EIR and further NEPA and/or CEQA review efforts undertaken if appropriate. This could include the preparation of a supplemental EIS/EIR.

1.2 NEED FOR THE EIS UNDER NEPA

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) establishes environmental policy, sets goals, and provides means for implementing the policy. NEPA contains provisions to ensure that federal agencies adhere to the letter and spirit of the act. The key provision requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" (40 C.F.R. part 1502.3). NEPA ensures that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and actions are taken (40 C.F.R. part 1500.1(b)).

In 1982, DOE prepared an EIS for the LLNL and SNL, Livermore sites (DOE, 1982). That document provided environmental information for DOE's decision to "operate the Livermore sites at the present level of effort which is consistent with national security and defense policy" (47 Fed. Reg. 44,836). The Record of Decision based on the 1982 EIS concluded that work at the two Laboratories was essential to the national need for research and development in the nuclear weapons program and other basic energy research. DOE made the commitment to operate the facilities to reduce further environmental, health, and safety impacts, to the extent practical.

The DOE Tiger Teams that reviewed LLNL and SNL, Livermore in February 1990 and in May 1990, respectively, recommended that the 1982 sitewide EIS be updated (DOE, 1990b; DOE, 1990c). Accordingly, the Secretary of Energy authorized the preparation of this new EIS.

DOE is the responsible agency for preparing NEPA sections of this document, and as such is lead federal agency for this EIS/EIR project. The Secretary of Energy must decide whether to select the proposed action as described and analyzed in this EIS/EIR, or select an alternative action. The DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures (59 FR 15122, April 24, 1992, to be codified at 10 CFR Part 1021) require DOE to prepare a Mitigation Action Plan for any commitments in its Record of Decision to mitigate adverse environmental impacts associated with the selected action (section 1021.331).

1.3 NEED FOR THE EIR UNDER CEQA

In 1970, California enacted the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code sections 21000–21177, to preserve and enhance the state's environment. CEQA requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to provide information enabling public agencies to consider environmental effects of projects. The Office of Planning and Research has prepared guidelines for implementing CEQA, 14 C.C.R. sections 15000–15387. Pursuant to these guidelines, this document is being prepared as a programmatic EIR.

In 1987, the University of California (UC) prepared an EIR to evaluate potential environmental impacts of the contract renewed with DOE to operate and manage LLNL (UC, 1987). The Notice of Determination published September 18, 1987, stated: "It has been determined that this project as mitigated will not have significant effect on the environment. Mitigation measures incorporated into the project include educating and training LLNL employees on environmental issues; evaluating new facilities and operations during planning stages; monitoring soil, air, water, wastewater, and vegetation in the community to verify compliance with permit limitations and to assure that there has not been any environmental degradation; minimizing waste streams; processing, decontaminating, storing, packing, treating and transporting all hazardous waste; and supporting cleanup of hazardous waste spills at the Livermore site and Site 300." This decision was challenged by the Southern California Federation of Scientists, et al., and the litigation was settled in February 1990.

The University of California is the CEQA lead agency for the project. The Regents of the University of California must decide whether to renew the contract with DOE for operation and management of LLNL, and to approve the proposed action as described in this EIS/EIR. The current contract expires September 30, 1992. As CEQA lead agency, the Regents of the University of California must adopt findings after certifying the Final EIR and before approving the renewal of its contract with DOE. These findings must describe significant adverse effects; state whether mitigation is feasible and, if so, describe feasible measures or explain why mitigation is infeasible; and identify alternatives and explain why environmentally advantageous alternatives, if any, are infeasible. Additionally, a mitigation monitoring program must accompany the findings.

1.4 USE OF AN INTEGRATED EIS/EIR DOCUMENT AND PROCESS

Both NEPA and CEQA encourage preparation of joint environmental documents where appropriate. DOE and UC are issuing this joint EIS/EIR to avoid duplication of effort and to coordinate impact assessments; however, the EIS/EIR will support two separate and different decisions. DOE's decision under NEPA involves evaluation of EIS/EIR information regarding both LLNL and SNL, Livermore, while UC's decision under CEQA will focus exclusively on EIS/EIR information regarding LLNL. The EIS/EIR includes separate sections required by CEQA and by NEPA; these sections are individually identified where they occur.

In accordance with CEQA and the UC CEQA Handbook, four descriptive categories are used in this document to discuss and analyze environmental impacts: less than significant, significant, significant and unavoidable, and beneficial. These categories have been created and assigned to individual impacts only for the purposes of compliance with CEQA requirements, and thus are used here only in a CEQA context. Under NEPA, the significance of environmental impacts determines the need for the NEPA document. Once that decision has been made, specific impacts are not categorized according to level of impact in an EIS.

DOE and UC have conducted an extensive program to promote public and intergovernmental involvement in this EIS/EIR. Appendix L describes the public information and intergovernmental affairs activities in support of this EIS/EIR.

1.5 FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

The impacts addressed in this EIS/EIR bound research and development activities and support functions within the envelope of the proposed action (see Section 3). For actions or impacts beyond the scope of this document, further environmental documentation will be prepared. In appropriate cases, however, future environmental documents will be tiered to this EIS/EIR.

1.6 EIS/EIR SCOPING PROCESS

On October 5, 1990, DOE published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register (55 Fed. Reg. 41048) to prepare a joint EIS/EIR. Subsequently, on October 8, 1990, UC filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the California Office of Planning and Research to prepare a joint EIS/EIR. Both the NOI and the NOP were sent to the California State Clearinghouse for distribution to agencies within the state.

Consistent with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) CEQ regulations (40 C.F.R. parts 1500–1508), and CEQA guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15083), DOE and UC conducted an early and open process to identify and determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIS/EIR. Both the NOI and NOP invited interested parties to attend a public scoping meeting on November 15, 1990, in Livermore, California, and to submit written comments until the close of the comment period then set for November 30, 1990. Subsequently, in response to a request from the public, DOE and UC extended the deadline for submission of written comments to December 15, 1990.

During the EIS/EIR scoping process, DOE and UC received a total of 282 comments from 61 members of the public; interested groups; and federal, state, and local officials. Eleven of the 282 comments received were statements either supporting or opposing the operation of LLNL and SNL, Livermore. The substance and disposition of the comments are discussed in the EIS/EIR Implementation Plan (DOE and UC, 1991). Table 1-1 provides a summary of the issues raised through the EIS/EIR scoping process.

1.7 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS/EIR AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

There were 704 comments on the Draft EIS/EIR received from 200 individuals, groups, and agencies. The comments were received both from speakers at a public hearing on April 30, 1992, and as correspondence received during a 90-day comment period that lasted until June 11, 1992. A list of the issues raised through this EIS/EIR public comment process is presented in Table 1-2. These comments are reproduced in their entirety in Volume IV with additional supporting exhibits provided separately in Volume V. Answers to the commentors questions are provided in Volume IV with changes made to the body of the document as indicated in the responses. These changes, along with comments from internal reviews, have been incorporated into this Final EIS/EIR.

1.8 RELATIONSHIP OF SITEWIDE EIS/EIR AND THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA)

Both the LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 are on the EPA Superfund National Priorities List. Environmental restoration activities at the LLNL Livermore site are being conducted pursuant to a CERCLA Federal Facilities Agreement made by EPA, DOE, the Department of Health Services (now the Department of Toxic Substances Control) and the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board. Environmental restoration activities at LLNL Site 300 are being conducted pursuant to an Interim Agreement made by EPA, DOE, and UC, signed in October 1991. In addition, a CERCLA Federal Facility Agreement for LLNL Site 300 has been negotiated and was signed in June 1992.

Remedial investigations are complete at the LLNL Livermore site and are continuing at LLNL Site 300; therefore, this EIS/EIR includes information on the environmental restoration activities at both sites. An environmental assessment has already been prepared for the LLNL Livermore site as part of the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) process (Isherwood et al., 1990). DOE is currently reviewing this process. It is expected that appropriate environmental documentation will be prepared for LLNL Site 300 as part of the Site 300 RI/FS process. Future environmental restoration activities at both sites up to the time a decision is made on the cleanup activities (the CERCLA Record of Decision), not covered by other specific NEPA documentation, are covered by this EIS/EIR. Environmental restoration activities are intended to incorporate NEPA values into the CERCLA process under DOE Orders. DOE Order 5400.4 states that it is DOE policy to integrate the procedural and documentation requirements of CERCLA and NEPA wherever practical. Nothing in this documentation is intended to represent a statement on the legal applicability of NEPA to remedial actions under CERCLA.

Table 1-1 Issues Raised Through the EIS/EIR Scoping Process

Table 1-2 Issues Raised Through the Draft EIS/EIR Public Comment Process

SECTION 1 REFERENCES

DOE, 1982, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories—Livermore Sites, Livermore, California, DOE/EIS-0028, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, July 1982.

DOE, 1990a, National Environmental Policy Act, Secretary of Energy Notice, SEN-15-90, Washington, D.C, February 5, 1990.

DOE, 1990b, Tiger Team Assessment of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, DOE/EH-0142, Washington, DC., April 1990.

DOE, 1990c, Tiger Team Assessment of the Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California, Washington, DC., August 1990.

DOE, 1991, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Program, Order 5440.1D, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., February 22, 1991.

DOE and UC, 1991, Implementation Plan for the Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report for Continued Operations of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, DOE/SF-500, U.S. Department of Energy and University of California, September 1991.

Isherwood, W. F., C. H. Hall, and M. D. Dresen, 1990, CERCLA Feasibility Study for the LLNL Livermore Site, UCRL-AR-104040, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, December 1990.

UC, 1987, Final Environmental Impact Report for the University of California Contract with the Department of Energy for Operation and Management of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, SCH-85112611, University of California, Berkeley, CA.