![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
National Nuclear Security Administration, Record of Decision for the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the National Ignition Facility
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: April 5, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 18078-18082]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05ap01-31]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration, Record of Decision for
the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the National
Ignition Facility
AGENCY: Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a
separate agency within the Department of Energy (DOE), is issuing this
Record of Decision (ROD) for the National Ignition Facility (NIF), a
key component of DOE's science-based stewardship of the nation's
nuclear weapons stockpile. This ROD is based, in part, on the
information and analysis contained in the National Ignition Facility
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to the Stockpile
Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(SSM PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0236-S1). Other factors that influenced the
decision include mission responsibilities of the Department. DOE's
decision is to continue to construct and operate the NIF as analyzed in
the SSM PEIS and the SEIS. This decision constitutes the no action
alternative of continuing ongoing activities (DOE's Preferred
Alternative) as described in the SEIS. As a result of this decision,
DOE will make no changes in the design of NIF, will undertake no
deviations in construction techniques, and will impose no operational
changes in the NIF.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the SEIS or
this ROD, please contact Scott L. Samuelson, NIF Field Manager, U. S.
Department of Energy, 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550-9234, phone
(925) 423-0593.
For information on NNSA's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process, contact Henry Garson, NEPA Compliance Officer for NNSA's
Defense Programs, (301) 903-0470. For information on DOE's NEPA
process, please contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA
Policy and Compliance, EH-42, U. S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20585, phone (202) 586-4600 or
leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) was
established in 1952 as a multi-disciplinary research and development
center, and is operated by the University of California for the
Department of Energy. LLNL is located in Livermore, California, about
40 miles southeast of San Francisco. LLNL consists of two portions, the
main site in Livermore and the 300 Area near Tracy, California. The NIF
is currently being constructed at the LLNL main site and is over 95%
complete. The NIF is a part of the DOE's development of science-based,
rather than underground nuclear test-based, stewardship of the nuclear
weapons stockpile. In NIF, nuclear fusion of very small amounts of
hydrogen isotopes is expected to be achieved using the energy inherent
in laser light. The environmental consequences of construction and
operation of NIF were addressed in detail in Appendix I of the SSM
PEIS. The ROD for the SSM PEIS was published in the Federal Register on
December 26, 1996 (61 FR 68014). In the ROD, DOE announced a decision
to proceed with construction and operation of NIF at LLNL. Ground-
breaking for NIF occurred on May 29, 1997.
On September 3, 1997, excavation activities at the NIF site
uncovered capacitors containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) oil and
other items
[[Page 18079]]
(buried drums that on analysis contained no hazardous, toxic and/or
radioactive material). Several of the capacitors had leaked,
contaminating surrounding soil. The capacitors and surrounding soil
were cleaned up in accordance with federal, state and local
requirements under a Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) removal action under paragraph
300.415 of the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR part 300). The
possibility of such an event was unforeseen and therefore was not
addressed in the SSM PEIS.
On September 22, 1997, the plaintiffs in NRDC v. Richardson, Civ.
No. 97-936 (SS) (D.O.C.) filed a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, in which they alleged that DOE knew, but did
not adequately analyze and disclose, the risk of building NIF in an
area that may contain buried hazardous, toxic, and/or radioactive
waste. DOE denied the allegations in the plaintiffs' motion. In a Joint
Stipulation and Order (hereafter, ``Order''), which settled all claims
in the plaintiffs'' Rule 60(b) motion, DOE agreed to conduct an
assessment of ``* * * the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse
environmental impacts of continuing to construct and of operating NIF
at LLNL with respect to any potential or confirmed contamination in the
area by hazardous, toxic, and/or radioactive materials'' and to present
the results in an SEIS.
As agreed upon in the Order, DOE conducted characterization studies
to determine the presence of any additional buried hazardous, toxic,
and/or radioactive materials in the northeast corner of LLNL, where the
NIF site is located. The progress of the characterization activities
was documented to the court in the form of quarterly reports. The
characterization activities are now complete and the results of these
activities have been analyzed in the SEIS. The characterization studies
did not detect the presence of any additional buried hazardous, toxic,
and/or radioactive materials that would adversely impact human health
and/or the environment.
Over the period of October 7-12, 1998, approximately one year after
the Order, workers conducting routine drainage maintenance operations
in the center of the East Traffic Circle (ETC) area uncovered debris.
This location is outside the NIF construction area. Soil samples
collected in the ETC area indicated that shallow soil in some locations
contained residual PCB concentrations above the industrial cleanup
level. These PCBs are believed to represent residual contamination from
a 1984 landfill closure in the ETC area. In consultation with
regulatory agencies, the surface soil was removed and sent to an EPA-
approved hazardous waste disposal facility.
NEPA Process. On September 25, 1998, DOE issued a Notice of Intent
(NOI) for preparation of the SEIS. On August 5, 1999, DOE issued an
amended NOI for preparation of the SEIS to keep the public informed of
the revised schedule for this SEIS. In October 1999, DOE published the
Draft NIF SEIS, which evaluated the technical issues discussed in this
ROD as they related to the evaluation of `` * * * the reasonably
foreseeable significant adverse environmental impacts of continuing to
construct and of operating NIF at LLNL, with respect to any potential
or confirmed contamination in the area by hazardous, toxic and/or
radioactive materials.''
The scope of the SEIS is based upon: (1) Any changes to the NIF
proposed action not previously addressed in the SSM PEIS, including the
requirements in the Joint Stipulation and Order, that are relevant to
environmental concerns; and (2) any significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the NIF
proposed action or its impacts, including the requirements in the Joint
Stipulation and Order, that were not previously addressed in the SSM
PEIS.
The public comment period for the Draft NIF SEIS began on November
5, 1999, and ended on December 20, 1999. During the comment period,
public meetings were held in Washington, D.C., and Livermore,
California. In addition, the public was encouraged to provide comments
via mail, fax, Internet and telephone. Over 200 public comments were
received. The Notice of Availability for the Final SEIS was published
in the Federal Register on February 23, 2001 (66 FR 11568). Volume I of
the Final SEIS contains changes made to the Draft SEIS in response to
the public comment process, while Volume II, the Response to Public
Comment, describes the public comment process, provides transcripts of
the public meetings, presents comment summaries and responses, and
provides copies of all comments received.
Purpose and Need. DOE's purpose and need for the NIF remains the
same as that analyzed in the SSM PEIS. The NIF will provide a unique
capability as a key component of DOE's science-based stewardship of the
nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. Planned experiments with NIF at
temperatures and pressures near those that occur in nuclear weapon
detonations will provide data needed to verify certain aspects of
sophisticated computer models. Those models are needed to simulate
weapons physics, thereby providing insights on the reliability of the
weapons stockpile. As a multipurpose inertial confinement fusion
facility, the NIF will also be important to fusion energy research
(e.g., next critical step in scientific evaluation of inertial fusion
energy as a future environmentally attractive energy source), basic
science (e.g., providing insight to the origin of the universe), and
technology (e.g., developing new technologies to aid U.S. industrial
competitiveness in optics, lasers, and integrated circuit
manufacturing).
As stated above, DOE prepared the SEIS to address (1) any changes
to the NIF proposed action not previously addressed in the SSM PEIS
that are relevant to environmental concerns, including the requirements
in the Order; and (2) any significant new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the NIF proposed
action or its impacts, that were not previously addressed in the SSM
PEIS. Among the issues potentially contained in the former category,
this SEIS evaluates the issues raised by the Conference Report
accompanying the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001, regarding the potential for operating NIF at less
than the planned 192 beams. The SEIS also evaluates whether the results
of the characterization studies completed pursuant to the Order should
affect the manner in which DOE proceeds with construction and operation
of the NIF.
Proposed Action and Alternatives Considered. The SEIS examines
alternatives related to continuing construction and eventual operation
of NIF in light of the discovered PCB waste in the NIF construction
area and residual PCB contamination in the ETC area. The SEIS also
presents results of the characterization studies that DOE conducted and
completed in 1998 and 1999 pursuant to the Joint Stipulation and Order.
The site characterization activities necessary to meet the
requirements of the Order were carried out in two phases. Phase I
required a review of all available reports, studies, maps, aerial
photographs, and other available records, as well as interviews with
workers and retirees who are reasonably known to have knowledge of the
potential existence and location of buried materials containing the
mentioned substances in any of seven specified areas around and
including
[[Page 18080]]
the NIF construction site. Phase II consisted of the remainder of the
required activities, as summarized here. The Order required
identification of any areas where the materials in question may have
been buried and required that appropriate geophysical surveys be
carried out to further investigate such areas. Potential hazardous
waste burial sites would then be investigated by, at a minimum,
conducting soil boring and/or soil vapor surveys. Finally, the Order
required the construction of one or more groundwater monitoring wells
in the affected areas to monitor impacts from de-watering activities at
the NIF construction site.
The Phase I and II investigations suggest that there is a low
likelihood that significant quantities of additional previously
unidentified buried hazardous, toxic, or radioactive objects remain in
the stipulated areas. This conclusion is based on the results of the
series of increasingly detailed inquiries conducted to identify and
investigate suspect areas. This approach ensured wide coverage while
providing convincing evidence of the absence of any further
undocumented buried hazardous, toxic, or radioactive objects in likely
areas. A comprehensive review was made of the current data, geophysical
studies were conducted and site investigations, such as groundwater
monitoring wells, soil boreholes and excavations, were performed. On
the basis of the above findings, it was concluded that the only
significant source of previously unknown or undiscovered buried
hazardous, toxic, or radioactive waste existing in the northeastern
quadrant at the time NIF construction began was the capacitor landfill
discovered in September 1997. The elevated concentrations of residual
PCBs discovered in soil in the ETC area in 1998 were from an already
known past waste disposal site. Both the capacitor landfill area in the
NIF construction area and the residual PCB contamination in the ETC
area were cleaned up to action levels agreed upon by the CERCLA
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), thereby reducing the actual or
potential contamination in these areas.
No Action Alternative--The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations implementing NEPA require that an EIS consider a no action
alternative (40 CFR 1502.14(d)). DOE has examined the no action
alternative from two perspectives. The first reflects the stats quo,
i.e., the ongoing activity of continuing to construct and operate NIF.
The second no action alternative is to cancel the NIF project, at which
time construction would cease and the site would be available for use
for another purpose.
No Action: Continuing Activity to Construct and Eventually Operate
NIF (DOE's Preferred Alternative)--DOE's current activities to
construct and eventually to operate NIF, as proposed and analyzed in
Appendix I of the SSM PEIS and decided in the SSM PEIS ROD dated
December 26, 1996, represents the status quo. DOE believes that
continuing ongoing activity is an appropriate no action alternative.
CEQ has indicated that, in the case of ongoing activities, the no
action alternative represents the status quo. (``[T]he `no action'
alternative may be thought of in terms of continuing with the present
course of action until that action is changed'' [Forty Most Asked
Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, Question 3, 46 FR 18026,
18027 (March 23, 1981)].) Under this alternative, DOE would make no
changes in the design of NIF, would undertake no deviations in
construction techniques, and would impose no operational changes in
response to the information regarding site contamination obtained
during the characterization studies completed pursuant to the Joint
Stipulation and Order. The SEIS describes the consequences of
continuing to construct and of operating NIF with respect to potential
buried hazardous, toxic, or radioactive material in the Stipulated
Areas. The SSM PEIS analyzed this alternative in detail with respect to
all other aspects of construction and operation.
No Action: Ceasing Construction--Because no action could also be
interpreted as ``no project at LLNL,'' DOE has determined that ceasing
construction of NIF at LLNL is also an appropriate no action
alternative. This alternative consists of several options described in
the SEIS. This alternative was also discussed in the SSM PEIS as the no
action alternative. DOE believes that ``no action'', when defined as
ceasing construction of NIF, is not a reasonable alternative. This
alternative would be reasonable to consider only if the
characterization studies had determined that the contamination caused
by buried hazardous, toxic, or radioactive materials was so extensive
as to raise serious questions of the advisability of continuing the
project in its current location. This is not the case, since no further
contamination was found at levels or in extent great enough to require
halting NIF construction to protect human health or the environment.
Options for No Action: Ceasing Construction
Placing the Facility in a Safe Condition--A decision to cease
construction of NIF at LLNL could be followed by activities to place
the facility in a condition that would permanently protect workers, the
public, and the environment. The facility would then be left idle
(``mothballed,'' as described in public comment).
Using the Facility for Another Program--The NIF facility would be
completed to the extent that it could be used for another program.
Depending on the intended alternative use of the facility, the level of
construction activity might be less than or equal to that required for
completion of NIF. The major difference would be that the NIF
scientific equipment would not be installed.
Demolishing NIF--The completed structures of the facility would be
demolished, excavations filled, and the site returned to a condition
that would be appropriate for open space.
Action Alternatives (Eliminated from Detailed Study)--The CEQ
regulations require that an EIS analyze all reasonable alternatives to
the proposed action and discuss the reasons why other alternatives were
eliminated from detailed study [40 CFR 1502.14(a)]. As discussed below,
DOE believes that the facts surrounding the proposed action and purpose
and need for the SEIS lead to the conclusion that there are no
reasonable action alternatives under the circumstances, and, therefore,
all action alternatives were eliminated from detailed study.
Change NIF Construction and Operation--Possible action alternatives
would consist of various ways to modify the manner in which DOE
continues to construct and operate the facility to take into account
the results of the characterization studies. Changes in construction
and operation of NIF might be reasonable to consider as alternatives
only if the characterization studies concluded that there are
additional buried hazardous, toxic, or radioactive materials or soils
in the area of the NIF construction site that would adversely affect
human health and the environment. Phase I and II evaluations of the NIF
site pursuant to the Order have uncovered no positive indications of
additional hazardous, toxic, and/or radioactive material. The hazardous
materials discovered during NIF construction have already been cleaned
up. Contamination at these locations is now below levels of concern for
impacts to the environment or human health.
[[Page 18081]]
Characterization studies have shown that there is a very low likelihood
of further existence of any buried wastes. Further NIF construction and
NIF operations would result in no additional potential adverse health
impacts to workers or the public from hazardous, toxic, and/or
radiological materials related to buried wastes beyond those analyzed
in the SSM PEIS. Therefore, no design, construction, or operation
modifications to address the presence of such materials need be
considered. Any contaminants within the area defined in the Joint
Stipulation and Order, and outside the NIF construction site, will be
addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act process with CERCLA RPM oversight.
Hypothetical Changes in NIF Operations Not Related to Buried
Objects or Residual Site Contamination--Public comments received on the
draft SEIS stated that certain changes related to NIF operations should
be added to the scope of the NIF SEIS, including the following: use of
plutonium, uranium, and lithium hydrides as targets for experiments;
lower energy operations; reduced number of beam lines (e.g., a half-
sized NIF); consideration of potential damage to optics; and more
frequent maintenance and cleaning of optics. DOE examined these
operational changes and determined they were not appropriate topics for
the NIF SEIS for the following reasons.
The process for determining whether DOE will supplement the SSM
PEIS to address a proposal to use plutonium, uranium, or lithium
hydrides as targets was established in the Memorandum Opinion and Order
issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on
August 19, 1998, in NRDC v. Richardson. By the terms of that Memorandum
Opinion and Order, DOE, no later than January 1, 2004, will either (1)
determine that experiments using plutonium, uranium (other than
depleted uranium), lithium hydride, and certain other materials will
not be conducted in the NIF or (2) prepare a Supplemental SSM PEIS
analyzing the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of such
experiments. DOE will continue to investigate the need for these
experiments and will make the required determination or begin the
appropriate SEIS by the specified date. However, until DOE has
completed the necessary studies and determined that such experiments
are needed, there is no proposal for such experiments, and it would be
inappropriate to begin a SEIS on a hypothetical proposal.
While lower energy operations and operation with a reduced number
of beam lines may be considered, these potential changes are within the
envelope of operations evaluated in the SSM PEIS and, for these
reasons, are not evaluated in detail as a distinct alternative in the
SEIS. Consistent with language in the Conference Report accompanying
the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, which
directed DOE to examine these issues, the SEIS includes an analysis of
lower energy operations and operation with a reduced number of beam
lines, both in terms of the envelope of operations analyzed in the SSM
PEIS and in absolute terms. The SSM PEIS evaluated operations of NIF in
an enhanced mode with a maximum credible yield of 45 megajoules per
shot, a maximum tritium inventory of 500 Ci, a tritium throughput of
1,750 Ci/yr, and tritium effluents of 30 Ci/yr. Operations with fewer
beam lines and/or at less energy would result in less or no yield per
shot, less tritium inventory, less tritium throughput, and less tritium
effluents. Since the absolute impacts from the full NIF would be very
low, as documented in the SSM PEIS, the SEIS concludes that any
differences between such impacts of the reduced options would be
inconsequential, irrespective of their relative magnitudes.
Public comment also requested that the SEIS address more frequent
damage to optics, more frequent maintenance of optics, and more
frequent cleaning of optics. DOE has examined this issue and concluded
that the impacts to workers and the public from damage to the final
optics in the beam lines has already been included in the impact
analysis conducted as part of the SSM PEIS. The actual frequency with
which optics components will have to be cleaned, adjusted, repaired, or
replaced would not be determined until the facility is completed and
tested.
The NIF laser facility includes 192 beam lines consisting of more
than 10,000 discrete optical components. The NIF target area provides
confinement of tritium and activation products by providing physical
barriers and controlling air flow. The facility operates in a pulsed
mode; maintenance and repair of the beamlines would not occur during a
pulse. The SSM PEIS evaluated risks to workers and the public and
generation of wastes for an enhanced mode with bounding yield. Normal
operations are expected to be within those bounds, including variations
in maintenance and repair of optics. For these reasons, DOE determined
that this was not an appropriate issue or alternative for inclusion for
detailed study in the SEIS.
Constructing NIF at Another Site--Constructing NIF at another site
at this time is not a reasonable option from a technical perspective.
The conventional construction of the NIF facility is now more than 95%
complete. The NIF requires large-scale laser research, development, and
support facilities that are present only at LLNL. In order to meet the
purpose and need for NIF, the required scientific infrastructure and
facilities that are now present at LLNL would have to be developed at
another site.
Moving NIF to another site might be reasonable to consider only if
the characterization studies identified additional major sources of
further contamination from buried hazardous, toxic, or radioactive
materials. No additional previously unknown or undiscovered sources of
contaminated objects were found at the NIF construction area as a
result of Phase I and Phase II characterization activities, and the
impacts of cleanup were minor (below levels of concern for human
health). The residual contamination found at the ETC area is at a
location different from that of the NIF construction site and would not
affect NIF construction or operation. Moving NIF to another site would
not provide the public substantial additional protection from buried
hazardous or radioactive materials. Any such materials found would be
removed under any circumstances.
Abandonment of the NIF Facility--Although suggested in public
comment on the draft SEIS, this option was considered but not evaluated
in detail in the SEIS. DOE has determined that it is unreasonable to
stop construction and abandon the site or facility without further
modifications. The facility would not be protected in any way from
degradation by the elements or from unwanted intrusion. Abandonment
without placing the facility in a safe condition would violate DOE's
principles of integrated safety management and good management
practices. Abandonment could violate one or more federal regulations,
state regulations, or DOE orders and guidelines. Abandonment would not
enable DOE to meet the purpose and need for which the NIF is being
constructed.
Summary of Environmental Impacts. The SEIS evaluates the impacts of
the preferred alternative and describes the Phase I and Phase II
characterization studies. The SEIS also evaluates the potential impacts
(including cumulative impacts) to LLNL workers and to the
[[Page 18082]]
public from construction and operation of the NIF because of the
possible presence of buried hazardous, toxic, or radioactive materials
in the areas in the northeastern quadrant of the LLNL as stipulated in
the Order.
Results of Phase I and Phase II investigations show that there is a
low likelihood that significant quantities of buried hazardous, toxic,
or radioactive materials remain in the stipulated areas. This
conclusion is based on the results of the series of increasingly
detailed inquiries conducted to identify and investigate suspected
areas. This approach ensured wide coverage while providing convincing
evidence of the absence of any further undocumented buried hazardous,
toxic, or radioactive objects in likely areas. A comprehensive review
was made of the current data from the existing 450 groundwater
monitoring wells and extensive soil borings. A total of four
magnetometer surveys, two electrical conductivity surveys and one
ground penetrating radar survey was conducted. Six new groundwater
monitoring wells were installed, 31 soil boreholes were drilled, and 11
test excavations were performed. The results of the Phase I and II
investigations were presented in the SEIS.
On the basis of the above findings, DOE has concluded that the only
significant source of previously unknown or undiscovered buried
hazardous, toxic, or radioactive waste existing in the northeastern
quadrant at the time NIF construction began was the capacitor landfill,
discovered in September 1997. The elevated concentrations of residual
PCBs discovered in soil in the ETC area in 1998 were from a known
former waste disposal site. Both the capacitor landfill area at the NIF
construction site and the residual PCB contamination in the ETC area
were cleaned up to action levels agreed upon by the CERCLA RPMs,
thereby reducing the actual or potential contamination in these areas.
DOE's analysis of soil and groundwater data, including data
collected in support of the capacitor landfill removal and Phase I and
II investigations, concluded that levels of contamination are well
below those that would impact human health and the environment. Current
and future levels of PCB contamination in groundwater are calculated to
be well below levels considered to present a risk to the public.
Construction and operation of NIF would not adversely affect
groundwater because no groundwater withdrawals or discharges would
occur from this facility. Ongoing remediation activities will continue
to improve groundwater quality for both no action alternatives--(1)
continuing construction and operation of NIF and (2) ceasing
construction of NIF. Potential impacts on the human environment at LLNL
are below any level of concern.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative. Environmental impacts were
estimated to be small for both no action alternatives as the levels of
contamination found at LLNL in the NIF site are well below those that
would impact human health and the environment. The no action
alternative of stopping NIF construction without relocation to another
site would impair the ability of NNSA to meet the purpose and need for
which NIF is being constructed, and is not considered a reasonable
alternative. Nonetheless, a decision to cease construction of NIF at
LLNL, if followed by activities to place the facility in a condition
that would permanently protect workers, the public, and the
environment, or to use the facility for another program with less
environmental impacts than NIF operation, would be the environmentally
preferable alternative, albeit an unreasonable alternative from NNSA's
standpoint.
Comments on the Final SEIS. During the 30-day period following
notice that the Final SEIS had been filed on February 23, 2001, the
NNSA received no comments on the Final SEIS.
Other Considerations. Cost and technical considerations have been
taken into account in the selection of the preferred alternative. NNSA
reviewed the mission need for NIF in a ``30-Day Review,'' a review by
the NIF Programs'' Target Physics Review Committee and a report focused
upon the role of NIF in the Stockpile Stewardship Program. NIF is one
of a set of essential capabilities that is needed to address the
significant technical challenges associated with developing a science-
based understanding of the nuclear stockpile. Given the continuing
requirement for NIF, the cost considerations relate to continuing the
construction at the existing site or starting the construction at a new
site. Accordingly, completing the construction at LLNL offers a
significant cost advantage.
Decision. NNSA has decided to continue the current activities to
construct and eventually to operate NIF, as analyzed in Appendix I of
the SSM PEIS and the SEIS. This decision was analyzed in the SEIS as
the no action alternative of continuing to construct and eventually to
operate NIF, which is NNSA's preferred alternative, and the only
reasonable alternative analyzed in the SEIS. Under this action, NNSA
would make no changes in the design of NIF, would undertake no
deviations in construction techniques, and would impose no operational
changes in response to the information regarding site contamination
obtained during the characterization studies completed pursuant to the
Joint Stipulation and Order.
NNSA prepared this Record of Decision pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR
parts 1500-1508) and the Department of Energy Regulations implementing
NEPA (10 CFR part 1021). In making this ROD for the NIF SEIS, the
Department considered the analysis in the NIF SEIS and the SSM PEIS,
along with other factors such as the NNSA statutory mission
requirements and national security policy.
Issued in Washington, D.C. this 30th day of March, 2001.
Spencer Abraham,
Secretary of Energy.
[FR Doc. 01-8396 Filed 4-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P