CHAPTER 3: COMMENT SUMMARIES AND RESPONSES

01 Land Resources

01.01

A commentor is concerned that other Department of Energy (DOE) sites do not have a future use plan like the Savannah River Site (SRS). The commentor also states that the SRS future use plan restricts future development to areas with prior development. The commentor wants this to become a DOE-wide policy. Another commentor proposes a land-use concept of multiple use for SRS. Primary uses would be located within the center, and environmental uses would occur within the surrounding buffer area.

• Response: All sites in the Nuclear Weapons Complex (Complex) have future land-use plans. Each site structures its future land-use plan in accordance with DOE guidance, program needs, and security requirements. For the proposed action in this programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS), SRS is an alternative for plutonium fabrication. That mission would be conducted in developed areas (F- and H-Areas) using existing facilities.

01.02

On Pantex Plant (Pantex) figures 4.5-2 and 4.5.2.1-1, a commentor notes that the playas are incorrectly labeled as dry lakes; they should be described as ephemeral lakes. In addition, the commentor states that all playas shown on these figures, except playa 3, are approximately 900 to 1,000 meters (m) (2,953 to 3,281 feet [ft]) in diameter. Also, the scale on figure 4.5.2.1-1 is incorrect (compared with that of figure 4.5-2, which is correct). Another commentor notes that the maps of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) presented in the document need to depict Area 51.

• Response: The phrase "dry lake" has been deleted from figures 3.4.1.2-1, 4.5-2, 4.5.2.1-1, 4.5.2.4-1, A.1.4-2, and A.3.5.1-1. Furthermore, a definition of playa can be found in the glossary (chapter 9) of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management (Final PEIS). The scale on figure 4.5.2.1-1 has been changed to match that of figure 4.5-2. Regarding Area 51, the maps of NTS do not depict this area since it is not a part of NTS. Lands withdrawn under Public Land Order 1662 are used by the Department of Defense (DOD) for their ongoing operations and are not considered in this PEIS for use by DOE.

01.03

The commentor asks if high explosives (HE) production is moved from Pantex to Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) or Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), where would the building be placed and the testing be done. The commentor also asks what the current and projected land use is around LANL and LLNL (particularly Site 300).

• Response: LANL HE fabrication process capability is already established. HE fabrication and storage functions would be supported in existing facilities at LANL Technical Areas (TAs) -9, -16, and -37. Since LANL HE plant facilities already exist and have sufficient capacity for stockpile management requirements, no new building construction and no significant modifications would be required. LANL assembles and detonates explosive test configurations in TA-15, TA-40, and TA-11 through TA-25. The commentor is referred to section 3.4.5.3 and appendix section A.3.5.2 for more information on the LANL HE alternative.
  
  The LLNL HE fabrication alternative would require construction of one new facility and would use 23 existing buildings, 66 existing magazines, and various utilities and services at Site 300. The new facility would be constructed at the HE storage area near M30 and M34. Energetic materials components are test fired at the HE Applications Facility, Building 191, at the Livermore Site. The remote firing facility, Building 851 at Site 300, is remotely located from HE fabrication operations and includes an outdoor firing capability to conduct large-scale explosives tests that cannot be performed in a test chamber. The commentor is referred to section 3.4.5.4 and appendix section A.3.5.3 for more information on the LLNL HE alternative. Regarding current and projected land use around LANL and LLNL, the commentor is referred to sections 4.6.2.1 and 4.6.3.1 for land use at LANL and sections 4.7.2.1 and 4.7.3.1 for land use at LLNL.

01.04

The commentor refers to section 4.9, Nevada Test Site, and suggests that the stated area be replaced with the legal size of 320,778 hectares (ha) (792,650 acres). The commentor notes that NTS may have been established in 1950, but it was not legally withdrawn until 1952. The commentor also believes that the PEIS should indicate all of the properties (underground nuclear explosion sites) that the Nevada Operations Office is responsible for such as Nellis Air Force Base Remote Sensing Laboratory, the Project Faultless site, the Project Shoal site, the Salmon site, the sites on Amchitka Island, as well as the Rulison, Rio Blanco, Gnome, and Gasbuggy sites.

• Response: The area given in the PEIS for NTS (approximately 350,866 ha [867,000 acres]) is based upon the definition of the land area presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Offsite Locations in the State of Nevada (NTS Site-Wide EIS) (DOE/EIS 0243) and is consistent with the NTS Site Development Plan. DOE is unaware of the origin of the legal size of NTS that the commentor asserts. In addition, this discrepancy in the size of NTS would not affect the impact analysis presented in this PEIS. For more information on public land orders and withdrawals concerning NTS, the commentor is referred to the response to comment summary 01.06 and the NTS Site-Wide EIS. Regarding the other properties for which the Nevada Operations Office is responsible, they are not discussed because they are not relevant to the analysis of the alternatives in the PEIS. None of these sites is considered as a candidate location for future activities within the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program.

01.05

The commentor refers to section 4.12, Environmental Impacts of Underground Testing, and asks that after the description of the land area ruined after each test, an infrared satellite image of the surface of Yucca Flat be provided.

• Response: Section 4.12 provides a programmatic evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of underground nuclear testing. The inclusion of an infrared satellite image of the surface of Yucca Flat would not be a meaningful contribution at this level of programmatic review. The commentor is referred to the NTS Site-Wide EIS for more detailed information on the potential environmental impacts of underground nuclear testing.

01.06

The commentor states that the lands comprising NTS are, in fact, public lands that have been withdrawn for a specific national defense purpose, as stipulated in the current public land orders. That purpose, according to the commentor, does not include large scale weapons assembly and disassembly (A/D) and/or the siting of laser fusion technologies such as the National Ignition Facility (NIF). The commentor states that if NTS is chosen for one or more of these functions, an analysis must be contained in the Final PEIS that addresses the facility-use restrictions in the public land orders.

• Response: In 1983, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976), conducted a review of the existing four land withdrawals that comprise NTS. The Bureau of Land Management report compiled during its review, acknowledged that while the primary mission of NTS continued to be weapons testing, other activities and projects are also being pursued. The reports specifically referred the readers to the Final EIS (1977) for "a more detailed explanation of activities and projects." Thus, it is clear that the Bureau of Land Management was well aware of DOE's multiple land uses, including radioactive waste disposal, NTS farm experiments, emergency response tests, etc. Thus informed, the Bureau of Land Management District Manager concurred with the review's conclusion that the lands were still being used for the purpose for which they were withdrawn. The Bureau of Land Management found that any new land uses at NTS at the time were not inconsistent with that original use.
  
  The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, implementing regulations, and the public land orders themselves, are silent on the use of withdrawn lands for related purposes or purposes in addition to those for which the land was originally reserved. There are no specific prohibitions against additional use, if the purpose for which the withdrawal was authorized remains valid. There is clearly no prohibition of the consideration of alternative uses, through an EIS or otherwise, of withdrawn lands as a management or administrative action to assess the potential for additional beneficial uses of such lands.
  
  The Department of the Interior is vested with oversight responsibility to review existing land withdrawals under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The Department of Interior's San Francisco Office has suggested in its comments on the NTS Site-Wide EIS that substantial changes in land use at NTS may require a new land withdrawal. While DOE believes that any new or proposed land use at NTS is compatible with the primary purpose of each land withdrawal, the most recent comments from the San Francisco Office of the Department of Interior indicate that a review of the existing land withdrawals may be prudent.
  
  As has been its past practice, DOE continues to be committed to ensuring that all future activities contemplated at NTS, are conducted in compliance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and Federal land withdrawal policy. In this regard, DOE has begun informal consultation with the Department of Interior to ensure that the appropriate process is followed to enable DOE to fulfill this commitment.

02 Site Infrastructure

02.01

Several commentors question the estimates for power requirements given in the PEIS, specifically tables 3.4.4.2-2 and 3.4.4.3-2. Commentors note discrepancies between the utility requirements for the secondary and case fabrication mission for the Y-12 Plant (Y-12) at Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) (appendix section A.3.2.1), LANL (appendix section A.3.2.2), and LLNL (appendix section A.3.2.3), and believe that these numbers show little basis in fact. Y-12, LANL, and LLNL propose to use 118,000, 36,000, and 15,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity; 250,000, 100,00, and 85,200 liters (L) (66,042, 26,417, and 22,507 gallons [gal]) of diesel fuel; and 1.5 billion, 55 million, and 36 million L (0.4 billion, 14.5 million, and 9.5 million gal) of water, respectively. However, the tables state that Y-12 will use 118,000 MWh with a peak of 19 megawatts electric (MWe), 17 million cubic feet (ft3) (0.14 cubic meters [m3]) of natural gas and 250,000 L (66,042 gal) of liquid fuel, but LANL will only use 36,000 MWh, 5 MWe peak, 100,000 L (26,417 gal) of liquid fuel, and no natural gas. Since the manufacturing processes require electricity and gas to operate and since each plant would produce the same number of parts, the commentors ask why the energy requirements at LANL are so low. According to the commentors these tables show an order of magnitude difference in the estimates for the power requirements for Y-12 and LANL to do the same job. The commentors also question why Y-12 would use 1.5 billion L (0.4 billion gal) of water and LANL only 55 million L (14.5 million gal) to do the same mission.

• Response: As stated in section 3.4.4 of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management (Draft PEIS), when comparing data between secondary and case manufacturing alternatives it is important to note that there are differences in the facility designs. The production capabilities of each of the three sites at surge capacity are different, with Y-12 the highest and LLNL the lowest. This is further explained in section 3.1.1.1.

02.02

The commentor requests resolution of the discrepancy between table 4.13.1.5-1 which states that LANL will use 4,491,240 m3/yr (158,608, 141 ft 3/yr) of natural gas and table 3.4.4.3-2 which states that LANL will use no natural gas.

• Response: Table 4.13.1.5-1 presents the site infrastructure combined impacts at LANL, that is, the total quantity of resources required to implement all missions for which LANL is a candidate. Table 3.4.4.3-2 provides the annual operating requirements to implement only the secondary and case fabrication mission. As presented in sections 3.3 and 3.4, LANL is a candidate for the stockpile stewardship alternatives associated with the physics of nuclear weapons primaries (ongoing work) and for the physics of nuclear weapons secondaries (ongoing work as well as NIF and the Atlas Facility). LANL is also a candidate for the stockpile management alternatives of nonnuclear fabrication, pit fabrication and intrusive modification pit reuse, secondary and case fabrication, and HE fabrication. Table 4.13.1.5-1 reflects the summation of all of the natural gas requirements to implement all of the above Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program missions at LANL.

03 Air Quality

03.01

The commentor states that with respect to air quality at LANL using in-house data is unacceptable to the State of New Mexico, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the citizens of New Mexico.

• Response: LANL is required to comply with the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990 and amendments and the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act of 1978, as amended. The ambient air quality standards for the State of New Mexico were recently amended January 10, 1996. These acts establish ambient air quality standards, require permits for new sources, and set acceptable emission limits. To accomplish compliance with these regulations, LANL implemented a site-wide evaluation of chemical emissions from all routine and experimental operations in response to reporting requirements specified in the CAA. These regulations require the laboratory to report all air emissions of criteria pollutants, as well as all hazardous air pollutants. The estimates of air pollutant concentrations presented in the PEIS for LANL were based upon those emissions of air pollutants as reported by LANL in response to reporting requirements specified in the CAA. These emissions are monitored by DOE as specified in permits issued by the State of New Mexico and EPA.

03.02

The commentor questions the use of 4.X.2.3 and 4.X.3.3 in appendix section B.1.1 and requests a statement, complete with verifying signature, on the level of quality assurance supporting the air quality sections.

• Response: A reference is made to appendix section B.1.1, Introduction, which states, "This appendix provides detailed data that support impact assessments for air quality addressed in sections 4.X.2.3, Affected Environment--Air Quality, and 4.X.3.3, Environmental Impacts--Air Quality." The "X" in the referenced section numbers is a generic symbol representing affected environment and environmental impacts for each site. This is an abbreviated format used in lieu of sections 4.2.2.3, 4.3.2.3, 4.4.2.3, 4.5.2.3, 4.6.2.3, 4.7.2.3, 4.8.2.3, and 4.9.2.3, Affected Environment--Air Quality, and 4.2.3.3, 4.3.3.3, 4.4.3.3, 4.5.3.3, 4.6.3.3, 4.7.3.3, 4.8.3.3, and 4.9.3.3, Environmental Impacts--Air Quality. The air quality analysis has received a complete internal quality assurance review.

03.03

The commentor refers to table 4.6.3.3-1 in the PEIS and states that LANL will be out of compliance for nitrogen dioxide release (24-hour basis) if the work from Y-12 is moved to LANL. The commentor asks what treatment is planned for the nitrogen dioxide release and if the cost is estimated in the PEIS.

• Response: The PEIS is a multi-site study performed at the programmatic level with the intent of comparing the air quality impacts among alternative sites. Table 4.6.3.3-1 presents the estimated air quality impacts at LANL for each of the proposed alternatives. The estimated 24-hour nitrogen dioxide concentration for the secondary and case fabrication alternative indicates that mitigation measures may be necessary to ensure that compliance is achieved. The degree of mitigation would be determined in a site- or project-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 document containing refined air quality modeling. Cost estimates are not included in the PEIS.

03.04

Commentors refer to section 4.6.2.3, table 4.6.2.3-1, Comparisons of Baseline Ambient Air Concentrations with Most Stringent Applicable Regulations and Guidelines at LANL, 1990 and 1992. Referring to the statement that baseline concentrations are in compliance with applicable guidelines and regulations with the exception of the 1-hour photochemical oxidants, a commentor states that photochemical oxidants were out of compliance with New Mexico ambient air concentrations standards for these years. Another commentor states that it is inexcusable that many of the listed pollutants are not monitored and that the baseline concentrations for these pollutants are just assumed to be less than applicable standards. The commentor suggests that more recent data be used.

The commentors also raise the following questions concerning the air quality material: are the years 1990 and 1992 representative years for air emissions, are they a conservative/nonconservative example, are other years in compliance with air standards, and why not use more recent years, such as 1994 or 1995? A commentor refers to section 4.6.3.3, Air Quality, No Action, "No action air quality utilizes estimated air emissions data from operations at LANL in 2005 assuming continuation of current site missions to calculate pollutant concentrations at or beyond LANL site boundary." The commentor states that the photochemical oxidant concentration was not addressed. The commentor states that the estimated concentration of this pollutant was not in the table presented and asks why this pollutant was not included.

• Response: The estimated air quality concentrations at LANL represent a snapshot in time which is used for comparative purposes among the sites presented in the PEIS. The baseline air quality concentrations presented in table 4.6.2.3-1 are based upon the latest air quality emissions data (1990 to 1992) available at the time the air quality analysis was performed. These data are considered representative of recent air quality emissions when compared with those emission data presented in the Environmental Surveillance at Los Alamos During 1993 (1993 Environmental Surveillance Report) (LA-12973-ENV, October 1995).
  
  Table 4.6.3.3-1, Estimated Concentrations of Pollutants from No Action and Stockpile Stewardship and Management Alternatives at Los Alamos National Laboratory, no longer presents photochemical oxidants. In December 1995, the State of New Mexico removed photochemical oxidants from the State's Ambient Air Quality Standard (20 NMAC 2.3). Tables 4.6.2.3-1 and 4.6.3.3-1 and appendix table B.3.1-1 have been updated to reflect the changes in the New Mexico state standards.

03.05

The commentor points out that there is a recurrence of number sequences with LANL (appendix section A.3.5.2 emissions estimates [4,540, 22,700, 4,540, 227, 454, 4.5, 45.4, 22.7, and 22.7]), and on comparing these numbers with Pantex, where there is a history of HE production, Pantex shows no such patterns. The commentor believes the LANL numbers have been fabricated. The commentor states that since estimates of environmental, safety, and health (ES&H) impacts are driven by emissions, those estimates are inevitably suspect.

• Response: The commentor refers to appendix table A.3.5.2-6. The emissions presented in this table are estimates of emissions from the LANL HE fabrication surge operation. The emissions presented in this table represent an HE fabrication output which is different than the historical output at Pantex. Air emissions estimates provided in the PEIS have been confirmed with LANL as being correct.

03.06

The commentor refers to section 4.6.3.3, Air Quality, subsection on Sensitivity Analysis, and the statement, "The concentrations of pollutants for the high case pit fabrication, HE, and nonnuclear fabrication missions are expected to be within applicable Federal and state regulations and guidelines. The 24-hour concentrations of nitrogen dioxide for the high case secondary and case fabrication mission may be above applicable standards and guidelines." (Table 4.6.3.3-1, Estimated Concentrations of Pollutants from No Action and Stockpile Stewardship and Management Alternatives at Los Alamos National Laboratory, is identified in neighboring sections for reference of the estimated emissions mentioned above.) The commentor states that the estimated concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in the combined program impacts is 276.69 micrograms per cubic meters (mg/m3) and the most stringent guidelines are 188 mg/m3 (24-hour average). The commentor also states that in appendix table B.3.1-1, Ambient Air Quality Standards Applicable to the Candidate Sites, the New Mexico guideline listed for nitrogen dioxide is 117 mg/m3 (24-hour average). The commentor states that this air quality value was also exceeded and is more stringent than the 188 mg/m3 value mentioned previously. The commentor suggests that the values should be rechecked or the text should be modified.

• Response: Section 4.6.3.3 has been changed in the Final PEIS to state, "The 24-hour concentration of nitrogen dioxide for the high case secondary and case fabrication mission is above applicable standards and guidelines." In addition, a change has been made in the heading of the last column in appendix table B.3.1-1, Ambient Air Quality Standards Applicable to the Candidate Sites, from "New Mexico (LANL and Sandia National Laboratories [SNL])" to "New Mexico (LANL/SNL)" and the entry for 24-hour nitrogen dioxide under this column changed from "117" to "145/117." This change indicates that the 24-hour nitrogen dioxide state standard for LANL is 145 mg/m3 while the city/county standard for SNL is 117 mg/m3.

03.07

The commentor states that for LANL the Draft PEIS contains no plans to directly monitor the emissions from these projects or to conduct ambient monitoring in the community if the projects are implemented. The commentor notes that as of October 1994, with the termination of a 5-year contract between the New Mexico Environment Department and the National Park Service, nonradioactive ambient monitoring for criteria pollutants was discontinued at the Bandelier site on the southern boundary of LANL adjacent to the Bandelier National Monument. The commentor states that he is not aware of any other ambient monitoring for criteria pollutants being conducted at LANL or in the Los Alamos community. The commentor further states that the radioactive ambient monitoring being conducted by LANL focuses mostly on the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility, which is currently the largest source of radioactive emissions. In the commentor's opinion, monitoring of actual conditions around the proposed projects is of prime importance to verify the modeled emissions presented in the Draft PEIS. In addition to monitoring, the commentor believes there should also be remediation plans in place in the event of actual emissions being measured higher than modeled ones.

• Response: The air quality analysis was performed at a programmatic level, which is a less detailed level of analysis than would be performed for a site-specific NEPA analysis. The goal of the analysis was to screen for potential major impacts and provide a means to compare air quality impacts among sites. If the site is selected for a specific mission then a more detailed air quality modeling analysis would be performed and appropriate mitigation measures would be undertaken to ensure compliance with Federal and New Mexico state standards.

03.08

The commentor states that in LANL table 4.6.3.3-1, the environmental impact resulting from secondary and case fabrication shows that model estimates for 24-hour average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide would be 231 mg/m3 and 277 mg/m3 from the combined program, levels which greatly exceed the applicable state standard and worsen the air quality of the area. The commentor states that the State of New Mexico cannot permit such large exceedances of its standard and that the exceedance of the standard is even greater than that shown in tables 4.6.3.3-1 and 4.13.1.5-2. These tables show the most stringent regulation or guideline for nitrogen dioxide to be the state standard, which is listed as 188 mg/m3. However, this figure does not reflect a correction for the altitude of LANL, which is approximately 2,194 m (7,200 ft) above sea level. Correcting for altitude, the state standard of 0.10 parts per million (ppm) is calculated to be 146 mg/m3. The commentor states that LANL should be omitted as a possible site for secondary and case fabrication because of the high concentration of nitrogen dioxide that would be emitted. (See comment document SSM-M-123, page 5, for the equation used for adjusting the concentration of nitrogen dioxide for altitude.) Another commentor states that in table 4.6.2.3-1 and in other tables containing the most stringent regulations or guidelines for gaseous criteria pollutants, these concentrations have not been adjusted to LANL's altitude which is 2,194 m (7,200 ft) above sea level.

• Response: The PEIS is a multi-site study performed at the programmatic level with the intent of comparing the air quality impacts among alternative sites. Tables 4.6.3.3-1 and 4.13.1.5-2 present the estimated air quality impacts at LANL for each of the proposed alternatives and cumulative impacts, including other proposed actions, respectively. The estimated 24-hour nitrogen dioxide concentration for the secondary and case fabrication alternative indicates that mitigation measures may be necessary to ensure that compliance is achieved. The actual emissions and the degree of mitigation would be determined in a site- or project-specific NEPA document containing refined air quality modeling.
  
  The New Mexico state standard for 24-hour nitrogen dioxide, which is given as 0.10 ppm in state regulations, when adjusted for a site altitude of 2,255 m (7,400 ft) above sea level converts to 145 mg/m3 . The Final PEIS has been changed to reflect the adjustment for altitude for those New Mexico state standards given as ppm.
  
  The New Mexico state ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and total reduced sulfur are given in ppm in state regulations. These standards were converted to mg/m3 at 1 atmosphere and 25 degrees Celsius (°C) 77 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to be consistent with other Federal and state standards. The results of the modeling were then compared to these standards with the result that the 24-hour nitrogen dioxide concentration exceeds the state standard for the secondary and case fabrication alternative. Adjusting the standards for altitude results in the same conclusions.
  
  If LANL is selected for a new or enhanced mission, then a refined air quality modeling analysis would be performed and appropriate adjustments for altitude would be made to the state standards to ensure compliance with Federal and New Mexico state standards. Performing the adjustment for altitude of the LANL site (2,255 m [7,400 ft] above mean sea level) results in the following New Mexico state standards: sulfur dioxide annual, 40 mg/m3 , 24-hour, 202 mg/m3 ; carbon monoxide 8-hour, 7,689 mg/m3 , 1-hour, 11,578 mg/m 3 ; nitrogen dioxide annual, 73 mg/m3 , 24-hour, 145 mg/m3 ; hydrogen sulfide, 1-hour, 11 mg/m3 ; and total reduced sulfur, 30-minute, 3 mg/m3 . The tables presenting New Mexico state standards have been changed to reflect standards adjusted for altitude in the Final PEIS.

03.09

The commentor states that the emission rates reported in appendix B and the estimated pollutant concentrations listed in the Pantex table 4.5.3.3-1 are the same as discussed in the Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Storage and Disposition Draft PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0229-D, February 1996). Therefore the comments regarding the discrepancy between estimated concentrations and Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission monitored concentrations of particulate matter holds true for the Draft PEIS. In addition, the commentor believes that the conclusion that the No Action alternative and the downsize A/D and HE fabrication alternative will not produce air pollutant concentrations exceeding Federal and state regulations and guidelines is acceptable.

• Response: The concentrations presented for Pantex in the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Draft PEIS and Storage and Disposition Draft PEIS represent the results of modeling using EPA's Industrial Source Complex Short-Term Model 2 and Industrial Source Complex Long-Term Model 2. The concentrations represent the maximum estimated concentration of particulate matter (PM10) based upon a base case surge level of activity discussed in section 3.1.1. The PM 10 monitoring data from Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission monitors at Pantex were not used since these data do not reflect the anticipated future level of activity at the site.

03.10

The commentor states that there is a factual error in section 4.13.1.5, in the paragraph titled Air Quality. According to the commentor, the last sentence describing LANL as a nonattainment area for ozone is incorrect. The commentor states that attainment is determined by comparison with the Federal standard, which for ozone is 0.12 ppm/hour average. The rule for determining a nonattainment area is explained in section 4.5.2.3. At the ambient air monitoring site operated by the New Mexico Environment Department at the southern boundary of LANL, adjacent to Bandelier National Monument, the highest value measured for ozone between 1989 and 1994 was 0.090 ppm/hour average. The commentor also notes that there is no state standard for ozone and, as of December 1995, there is not a state standard for photochemical oxidants.

• Response: The commentor is correct. The sentence in section 4.13.1.5, Air Quality, "LANL is in a nonattainment area for ozone concentrations" has been deleted from the document.

03.11

The commentor states that the New Mexico regulations alluded to in appendix section K.3.3.1 are obsolete or contain errors. The reference to "total suspended particulates" as "PM10" is incorrect. Although both names refer to particulates, they are measured by different monitors and have different standards. The commentor also states that the reference to New Mexico standards for beryllium, asbestos, heavy metals, photochemical oxidants, and nonmethane hydrocarbons is now obsolete. In 1995, these pollutants were eliminated from the New Mexico regulations. Federal regulations remain in existence for some of these pollutants. The pollutants eliminated from state standards are also mentioned in tables in section 4 and in appendix B.

• Response: The commentor is correct. The text in appendix section K.3.3.1, "total suspended particulates (PM 10 ), including beryllium, asbestos, and heavy metals; sulfur dioxide; total reduced sulfur; carbon monoxide; nitrogen oxides; photochemical oxidants; and nonmethane hydrocarbons" has been changed to "total suspended particulates (TSP), particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ), sulfur dioxide, total reduced sulfur, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides." Tables in section 4 and in appendix B have also been changed to reflect the pollutants eliminated from state standards.

03.12

The commentor points out that the Draft PEIS states that "the irregular terrain of Los Alamos affects wind motion and spreading. Localized wind gusts may not be in the same direction as average wind patterns" (appendix section K.3.3.1). In light of this information, the commentor suggests LANL correlate ambient air monitoring to the complex topography.

• Response: DOE agrees with the comment regarding the correlation between air quality and LANL's complex topography. Air monitoring does correlate to the topography of LANL. The local meteorology is just one of many factors considered in the design of the air sampling network as a whole and when locating individual air quality monitoring stations.

04 Water Resources

04.01

A commentor indicates that the proposed construction of NIF and other upgrades at SNL would violate the city of Albuquerque's water use and discharge policies. The commentor suggests that water conservation issues in the city of Albuquerque should be discussed in the document relative to the proposed action at SNL.

• Response: As discussed in sections 4.8.2.4 and 4.8.3.4, SNL receives only 30 percent of its water from the city of Albuquerque. The remaining 70 percent is pumped from water supply wells on Kirtland Air Force Base, which has groundwater rights of 7,900 million liters per year (MLY) (2,089 million gallons per year [MGY]) and is currently operating at only a 50-percent capacity. NIF would increase SNL's water usage by 152 MLY (40 MGY) over No Action water use; this equates to less than 0.2 percent of the city of Albuquerque's annual consumptive water rights. Nonnuclear fabrication would increase SNL's water usage by 893 MLY (236 MGY) over No Action water use; this would total less than 1 percent of the city of Albuquerque's annual consumptive water rights. In addition, the city of Albuquerque also receives a 50-percent return flow credit for sanitary wastewater discharged to the Rio Grande, and the city has the rights to 56,800 MLY (15,005 MGY) of San Juan Chama water. The potential water used by NIF and the nonnuclear fabrication mission would meet the city of Albuquerque's water usage, discharge, and water conservation policies. Discharges from NIF and nonnuclear fabrication would be treated and monitored to meet the standards of the city of Albuquerque's Sewer Use and Wastewater Control Ordinance as well as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Discharges would not exceed wastewater treatment capacities. As discussed in section 3.8, the preferred alternative is to downsize nonnuclear fabrication at Kansas City Plant (KCP) and construct and operate NIF at LLNL.

04.02

A commentor states that section 4.6.2.4 indicated that LANL water resource allotment would be used up by the year 2000, and questions how LANL can produce weapons such as Y-12 has done without an adequate water supply.

• Response: The Draft PEIS incorrectly stated the projected groundwater requirements. Section 4.6.2.4 has been revised based on more accurate No Action water use estimates. The present groundwater allotment at LANL, based on the new data, would be fully used by about 2052 instead of the previously estimated year of 2000. If San Juan Chama water is included, the site would not require the total available supply until 2072.

04.03

The commentor, referring to section 4.2.3.4, asks what the increased operating requirements of the existing Y-12 secondary and case fabrication facilities are in the No Action case.

• Response: The Y-12 No Action estimates for various resource consumption and waste generation show an increase over current values primarily due to increased dismantlement activity projections. This increased workload is expected because Y-12 would be working down the backlog of canned subassemblies received from weapons dismantlement activities at Pantex. The Y-12 dismantlement rate has been lower than the Pantex rate because of a production stand-down during portions of 1994 and 1995.

04.04

The commentor states that a contaminated water plume is drifting offsite at LLNL, yet budget cuts may not allow for cleanup.

• Response: The Livermore Site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) for Superfund cleanup in 1987. Several documents assessing the area and planning remedial action have been published since that date. As stated in section 4.7.2.4, approximately 150 million L (40 million gal) of groundwater in the southwest corner of the facility have been treated to remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Five treatment facilities, A, B, C, D, and F, built from 1989 to 1994, currently treat VOC-contaminated water. As of 1994, over 470 million L (124 million gal) of water with approximately 50 kilograms (kg) (110 pounds [lb]) of VOCs and 300 L (79 gal) of gasoline have been treated. Facilities E and G were in the planning stages at the time this document was being written.
  
  At Site 300, ongoing remedial investigations, feasibility studies, and remedial actions are being performed as part of the environmental restoration project. Site 300 was placed on the NPL under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in August 1990. During 1993 and 1994, 903,000 L (238,545 gal) of groundwater containing 2,350 grams (g) (5 lb) of VOCs were treated by an air sparging groundwater treatment and vapor extraction system. In addition, pilot vapor extraction treatment of VOCs is ongoing. Environmental restoration budgets are outside the scope of this PEIS.

04.05

One commentor believes that to expand the Pantex role is irresponsible in view of the fact that the plant lies above the largest freshwater aquifer in the United States, and that the aquifer is the lifeblood of the area's agriculture industry. Why the Ogallala aquifer has not been classified as a Class 1 water source is puzzling to the commentor. Another commentor states that the document fails to address the issue of the location of Pantex over the Ogallala aquifer. One commentor states that it is a contention by Pantex boosters that no substantial water pollution has occurred except for the perched water above the Ogallala aquifer. The commentor wants to know how much contamination levels will rise if Pantex's role is expanded and if an expansion is worth the risk. Another commentor believes that concerns about the Ogallala aquifer are unfounded. One commentor also notes that there is no significant discussion of recharge to the Ogallala aquifer, nor is there discussion of groundwater flow in either the perched or Ogallala aquifers. Also, a discussion of the fact that contaminants in the perched aquifer have already moved off Pantex to the east is lacking.

• Response: The only Pantex alternatives discussed in the Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS are downsizing (with the establishment of nonintrusive pit reuse) and phaseout of existing missions. As mentioned in section 4.5.3.4, these alternatives, as well as the No Action alternative, will reduce the water requirements at Pantex by at least 69 percent from current use. No expansion is taking place under the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program.
  
  Sections 4.5.2.4 and 4.5.3.4 address the issue of the location of Pantex over the Ogallala aquifer. Despite the decreases in groundwater use, at the conclusion of every alternative in the groundwater impact sections is the statement "although Pantex water use would decrease, operational water use would still contribute to the overall decline of the Ogallala aquifer because the area groundwater withdrawal rate would exceed the recharge rate."
  
  A detailed discussion of groundwater recharge exceeds the scope of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS. For more specific information, the reader should refer to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Pantex Plant and Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapons Components (Pantex Site-Wide Draft EIS) (DOE/EIS-0225 D, March 1996). This PEIS summarizes the recharge data available and draws conclusions from that data. Estimates of groundwater recharge are given in section 4.5.2.4 as 0.02 to 4.1 centimeter (cm)/yr (0.0079 to 1.6 inches [in]/yr) in comparison with withdrawal rates of 0.6 to 2 m/yr (1.97 to 6.56 ft/yr). The extent of the contaminants in the perched aquifer moving off Pantex to the east is under investigation as discussed in the groundwater quality section of the Pantex Site-Wide Draft EIS.

04.06

A commentor states that the information presented on groundwater quality at LANL is misleading. The commentor further states that contaminant levels have fluctuated over time and that there is evidence that contaminants are reaching the deeper aquifer from surface discharges and shallower, more contaminated areas. The commentor cites considerable mobility of contaminants in the subsurface at Mortandad Canyon which has been discovered and states that this is an area into which LANL currently discharges a significant portion of its liquid radioactive waste.

Other commentors express concern about the nuclear laundry in Santa Fe and suggest that it be closed. Another commentor states that the public does not want LANL wandering up Cerrillos Road, two blocks up beyond the old Ramada Inn, pumping radioactive waste into the Santa Fe water table.

• Response: The information presented in the PEIS is based on the best available data. Since publication of the Draft PEIS, the 1993 Environmental Surveillance Report data was published in October 1995. This new data shows four monitoring well locations in Los Alamos, Pueblo, and Mortandad Canyons with low levels of tritium contamination. The highest tritium concentration is approximately 2 percent of the Federal drinking water limit. Other contaminants were not found in measurable amounts. This is consistent with past monitoring results. As stated in section 4.6.3.4, no process wastes would be discharged directly to the groundwater. All treated wastewater discharges to the canyons would be monitored to comply with NPDES permits and other applicable discharge requirements.
  
  The commentor is referring to a privately operated commercial laundry, located in the vicinity of Cerrillos Road in Santa Fe. The facility launders laboratory coats, booties, and other clothing used in operations around radioactive materials. LANL has been a customer of this laundry for several years, but not the only customer. The vendor operates several laundry facilities around the country. Discharges from the commercial laundry are monitored by the New Mexico Environment Department, which has permitting authority over the facility.

04.07

The commentor refers to the NTS section 4.9.2.4 and suggests that the word "affected" be replaced with the word "contaminated." In addition, the commentor suggests that the sixth line be removed or corrected because the statement does not make sense. According to the commentor, tests conducted below the NTS water table contaminate the surrounding groundwater with radionuclides. The commentor also refers to section 4.12 and states that groundwater that may be potentially contaminated is water that people are likely to avoid. The subsistence farmer, in the distant future, may not have his well water checked on a regular basis. The commentor feels phrases such as "quality," "some," "impacts," and "could be expected" should be replaced with "purity," "extensive," "damage," and "would take place," respectively, when describing the unavoidable impacts that underground testing has on groundwater.

• Response: The terminology used in the Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS is accepted within the environmental community to characterize conditions at the site and is consistent with the terminology used in the NTS Site-Wide EIS. In reference to the commentor's suggestion about the sixth line, the following statement in section 4.9.2.4 has been removed from the Final PEIS, "subsurface migration of tritium to offsite areas is possible, but the probability of tritium reaching offsite wells or springs is minimal."
  
  As stated in section 4.12, underground testing would be expected to have a significant impact on groundwater quality only if the testing is conducted in, or near, the water table. In this event, large scale contamination of the near-test groundwater resources could occur. However, because of the conditions at NTS (low hydraulic conductivities, high absorption geologic media, and slight hydraulic gradients), it is not considered likely that any significant impacts would occur in areas downgradient of the underground testing locations.

04.08

The commentor states that maximum groundwater concentrations at LLNL, reported in the PEIS, of gross alpha, nitrate/nitrite, trichloroethylene, and tritium exceeded water quality criteria/standards in 1993. According to the commentor, VOC-contaminated water is present under 85 percent of the Livermore Site and various other examples of groundwater contamination exist. The commentor asks what measures are proposed to mitigate further groundwater contamination at LLNL resulting from proposed actions.

• Response: DOE agrees that the current groundwater monitoring system is inadequate. LLNL has implemented a system of satellite monitoring stations positioned at strategic locations within the main sewer system. Each station has an automatic sampler which, in the event of a release, can be used to find the origin of the spill. During 1993, no releases warranted a sewer diversion. In comparison, during 1991 and 1992, 15 and 13 releases, respectively, were detected. In addition, all building drains were tested to determine their points of discharge and all deficiencies were categorized and are being corrected (major deficiencies were remedied immediately). Relining of the major laterals of the sanitary sewer system also began in 1993.
  
  The preferred stockpile stewardship alternative site for NIF is LLNL. The increase in wastewater discharges due to NIF is 3.9 percent over No Action. Since there are no direct discharges to surface or groundwater, no adverse impacts are anticipated. At Site 300, the Contained Firing Facility (CFF) is the preferred stockpile stewardship alternative. Wastewater discharge is expected to increase 6.8 percent over No Action. Wastewater is discharged to leach fields and septic systems at Site 300. These discharges are monitored and must comply with NPDES permits and waste discharge requirements.

04.09

The commentor states that the radiological sources in the groundwater section of the NTS Site-Wide EIS should be included in the Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS. According to the commentor, the text in question extends from page 4-159, line 8 to page 4-163, line 24 and should include table 4-27. Further, the commentor disputes the amount of plutonium-239 buried under the NTS testing grounds.

• Response: Section 4.9.2.4 discusses groundwater monitoring at NTS. As stated in this section, tritium is the only radionuclide that appears in sampled groundwater at significant levels. These levels (120 picocuries [pCi]/L for 1993) are well below the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 141) of 20,000 pCi/L. In section 4.12 of the PEIS, the effects of underground nuclear testing on several resources, including groundwater, are discussed. In addition, radiological impacts are discussed in the Radiation and Hazardous Chemical Environment sections 4.2.9.3 through 4.9.9.3. For more detailed analysis beyond the scope of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS, site-specific documents such as the NTS Site-Wide EIS should be reviewed.

04.10

The commentor asks why the uranium in water values in tables 4.2.2.4-1, 4.5.2.4-1, and 4.6.2.4-1 are different (20 pCi/L and 20 mg/L). In addition, the commentor asks why these tables state that the uranium value of 20 pCi/L or 20 mg/L is a National Primary Drinking Water Standard, when it is only a proposed standard.

• Response: The proposed National Primary Drinking Water Standard (56 FR 33050) for uranium (20 mg/L ) only applies to table 4.6.2.4 - 1. The other tables reflect Derived Concentration Guides in pCi/L as the standard because the samples reflect total uranium concentrations which do not apply to the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Standard.

04.11

The commentor believes that the PEIS should evaluate hydrology of surface and subsurface waters at LANL and SNL, not just potable water sources. Hydrology involves the potential for subsurface travel of materials such as petrochemicals and the resultant contamination of the Southern Valley of Albuquerque, according to the commentor. Another commentor asks where hydrology is discussed in the PEIS.

• Response: Surface water quality at LANL and SNL is evaluated in sections 4.6.2.4 and 4.6.3.4, and 4.8.2.4 and 4.8.3.4, respectively. Groundwater monitoring wells exist at several depths, both in perched aquifers and deeper aquifers, potable and nonpotable. Drinking water standards are listed in tables 4.6.2.4-1 and 4.8.2.4-1 for comparison purposes only.
  
  All treated wastewater discharges would be monitored to comply with NPDES permits and other applicable discharge requirements. The preferred alternatives of pit fabrication and the Atlas Facility at LANL would only increase wastewater discharges by 1.8 percent. These discharges would be treated before release to the canyons. No adverse impacts to either surface or groundwater are expected. There are no stockpile stewardship and management preferred alternatives identified for SNL.

04.12

The commentor expresses concern about the quality of the drinking water at Pantex. The commentor notes that Pantex is monitored for 160 contaminants, the majority of which ended up being discharged to groundwater. The commentor wants a broader spectrum of contaminant analysis for drinking water.

• Response: Pantex is monitored to comply with all Federal, state, and site-specific regulations. The groundwater monitoring program is constantly being updated based on past results to provide the best analysis possible. As discussed in sections 4.5.2.4 and 4.5.3.4, there are no direct discharges to groundwater. All wastewater is processed at the Pantex wastewater treatment facility before release to the playas. All discharges comply with NPDES permits and surface water monitoring is conducted regularly.

04.13

The commentor asks if, in section 4.2.3.4, the statements are correct that the phaseout of work at Y-12 would reduce the flow in the East Fork of Poplar Creek to zero and would have no impact on the water quality in the creek, and that there are no natural springs beneath some buildings in the plant that run continuously into the East Fork of Poplar Creek (very low flow rates). The commentor asks further, if it is not correct that the city of Oak Ridge must have a flow in the East Fork of Poplar Creek in order to discharge the treated sewerage water from the city, and if the flow from Y-12 is zero, would the city of Oak Ridge be allowed to continue to discharge the treated water into the creek.

• Response: In section 4.2.3.4, the statement should read that the phaseout of secondary and case fabrication would decrease the discharges from the mission to zero; other missions at Y-12 would continue to discharge to East Fork Poplar Creek. Phaseout would not be expected to impact the city of Oak Ridge discharge of treated sewage water.

04.14

According to the commentor, section 4.5.2.4 does not provide adequate information for the reader to determine if environmental impacts could result from the proposed alternative actions at Pantex.

• Response: Chapter 4 of the PEIS is broken down into two sections, the affected environment and environmental impacts. Section 4.5.2.4 is intended to provide only the affected environment, or a baseline for comparison of environmental issues. Water impacts due to No Action and proposed alternatives at Pantex are discussed in section 4.5.3.4. In addition, all of the alternatives considered for Pantex decrease the amount of water used and discharged.

04.15

Commentors ask if an analysis has been made of the impact on the Las Vegas municipal water supply of NTS workers and their families associated with the 2,253 new jobs at NTS (Stockpile Stewardship and Management Summary section S.4.1) who are likely to reside in Las Vegas.

• Response: Based on the population of Las Vegas (327,878), the 2,253 new workers associated with the A/D mission at NTS would represent less than a 1-percent population growth. The population growth in the area is approximately 7 percent per year. Because this increase in population is within normal growth rates, minimal impacts to the municipal water supply are expected and no specific analysis was included in the PEIS.

04.16

The commentor states that there are numerous factual errors in section 4.6.2.4, Water Resources at LANL. The commentor points out that the 1992 data is being used and suggests using more recent data (for example, the 1993 Environmental Surveillance Report). The commentor notes that in Parajito Canyon, Homestead Spring feeds a perennial stream only a few hundred yards long. The stream is fed by other springs in addition to Homestead Spring. According to the commentor, only during periods of heavy precipitation or snowmelt would water from Pueblo, Los Alamos, or Sandia Canyons extend beyond LANL boundaries and reach the Rio Grande. The commentor suggests that this information be supported by good volumetric data which can be obtained from the data provided by the gauging stations.

• Response: The water resource data has been updated with information from the 1993 Environmental Surveillance Report , which had not been published at the time the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Draft PEIS was prepared. DOE agrees with the commentor that Homestead Spring feeds a perennial stream 3 to 5 kilometers (km) (2 to 3 miles [mi]) long, and the Final PEIS has been corrected accordingly (see section 4.6.2.4); however, the 3- to 5-km (2- to 3-mi) distance is largely due to contributions from other springs and runoff, and not solely to Homestead Spring discharge.
  
  The following volumetric data regarding surface water runoff beyond LANL boundaries is provided at the commentor's request. At the LANL boundary during water year 1995 (fiscal year 1995), the last year for which data is available, the streams mentioned in the PEIS flowed as follows:

Pueblo: 365 days with flow (typically about 0.03 m3 [51 ft3] per second)
Los Alamos: 94 days with flow
Sandia: 6 days with flow
Mortandad: 0 days with flow

• In addition, visual and chemical observations from Mortandad Canyon since 1960 by U.S. Geological Survey and LANL hydrologists have not noted any continuous flow from the upper canyon to the LANL boundary.

04.17

The commentor points out that according to the PEIS, groundwater in the LANL area exists in three modes. The commentor advises that there is a fourth mode-shallow perched in the Bandelier Tuff. In addition, the commentor states that in the PEIS, under Groundwater Availability and Use, downgradient users beside the communities of Los Alamos and White Rock are not mentioned. The commentor asks about other possible usage by pueblos such as San Ildefonso and Santa Clara.

• Response: The commentor notes a fourth occurrence of groundwater: shallow perched water in the Bandelier Tuff. This mode of groundwater occurrence is known to be present west of LANL on the flanks of the Jemez Mountains. While it is possible that this form is present beneath LANL, it is not known to be present, and hydrologic studies would have to be performed to confirm this condition.

04.18

The commentor is of the opinion that there is little consistency in the placement of groundwater monitoring wells at LANL and that existing wells are inadequate. The commentor points out that the wells are very old (the most recent was drilled in 1963), and may not be thoroughly grouted and may be leaking. The commentor is concerned that contaminants may not be detected because of the lengthy intervals between sampling screens (some greater than 30.5 m [100 ft], e.g. DT-9 is screened at 317 m [1,040 ft] and 457 m [1,500 ft]).

• Response: DOE agrees with the commentor that the present groundwater monitoring network is inadequate. DOE and LANL have initiated a major upgrade to the monitoring network to include additional wells drilled to monitor all zones of groundwater beneath LANL (see the LANL Groundwater Protection Management Program Plan, January 31, 1996).

05 Geology and Soils

05.01

The commentor states contamination in soils has been omitted almost entirely from the discussion of the current environment at LANL.

• Response: LANL has a long-standing soils monitoring program to identify potential contamination of soils; this is reported to the public annually in LANL's Environmental Surveillance Report and other publications. DOE is working with Federal and state regulatory authorities to address compliance and cleanup obligations arising from its operation of LANL and is engaged in several activities to bring its current operations into full regulatory compliance. Although LANL is not listed on the NPL, it is required to obtain a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit in accordance with the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. This requires that permits for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities include provisions for corrective action to mitigate releases from facilities in operation and to clean up contamination in areas designated as solid waste management units at LANL. The commentor is referred to sections 4.6.2.10, 4.6.3.10, and appendix section H.2.5 of the Final PEIS for more information about waste management and identified release sites at LANL.

05.02

Commentors believe that the description of the geology and soils at Pantex is inadequate. According to one commentor, section 4.5.2.5 does not provide adequate information for the reader to determine if environmental impacts could result from the proposed alternative actions at Pantex. It is therefore not possible to determine that "hazards posed by geological conditions are negligible at Pantex." The commentor also states that the role of salt dissolution and subsidence in the formation of the playa basins should be described, as well as the potential effects, if any, of dissolution-induced subsidence at the plant. Another commentor notes that Pantex is located on a geological fault that has been active enough in the last century to cause damage to farm buildings.

• Response: The discussion in sections 4.5.2.5 and 4.5.3.5 now includes the two main geological processes that are relevant to the Pantex area: subsidence and seismic activity. The following text has been added to section 4.5.2.5 in the Final PEIS, "In the High Plains area, salt dissolution in Permian formations is an active process which can lead to sinkholes and fractures. Such surficial expressions have not been identified in Carson County, where Pantex is located. Sinkholes and fractures have been identified, however, in adjacent Armstrong County to the south and Hutchinson County to the north." The following text has been added to section 4.5.3.5, "Potential subsidence impacts resulting from salt dissolution are considered negligible at Pantex because salt dissolution is a slow process relative to human activities." While there are no active faults identified beneath Pantex, it is true that seismic events have occurred in the region which have caused damage to residential buildings. The level of seismicity historically associated with the Pantex region, however, is low. The seismic risk at Pantex, therefore, is judged to be low.
  
  The commentors are referred to the geology and soils section of the Pantex Site-Wide Draft EIS for a more detailed discussion of salt dissolution and seismicity in the Pantex region. Aside from these geological processes, it should be noted that the proposed alternatives at Pantex involve no new construction. As a result, no adverse geological or soils impacts are anticipated.

05.03

The commentor states that the lithology of the Ogallala Formation is not described in the PEIS. The significance to groundwater flow of the fine-grained zone as well as gravels in buried channels beneath the plant should be described, according to the commentor.

• Response: A detailed discussion of the lithology of the Ogallala Formation is more information than necessary to evaluate potential aquifer impacts for a programmatic review. The commentor is referred to the groundwater section of the Pantex Site-Wide Draft EIS for a discussion of the fine-grained zone and buried channels beneath Pantex.

05.04

The commentor refers to section 4.12, Environmental Impacts of Underground Nuclear Testing, and requests correction of the effects of subsidence to state that radioactivity is only partially confined and that the effects will persist for at least a quarter million years.

• Response: The commentor is correct, radioactivity from some materials in NTS soils would remain for a long time. As stated in section 4.12, radioactive noble gases and tritium may be released to the surface by gradual seepage from the cavities and by escape of gases during sampling operations. This statement is meant to indicate that the radioactivity is not entirely confined.

05.05

The commentor notes that no mention is made that the Randall clay soils at Pantex contain potential pathways for groundwater recharge (i.e., deep desiccation cracks and root tubules).

• Response: The fact that Randall clay soils at Pantex contain potential pathways for groundwater recharge is considered in the estimates of annual recharge rates to the Ogallala aquifer. The commentor is referred to section 4.5.2.4, Water Resources, for a discussion of aquifer recharge.

06 Biotic Resources

06.01

The commentor is concerned that SRS is destroying the natural habitat along the Savannah River.

• Response: Impacts to natural habitat along the Savannah River would not be expected from either the No Action or management alternative (i.e., pit fabrication mission). Under the No Action alternative, there would be no change to current biological conditions of the site, including habitat along the Savannah River. The pit fabrication mission also would not be expected to adversely affect habitat along the Savannah River since existing facilities within the F- and H-Areas would be used and wastewater would be released through NPDES-permitted discharges.

06.02

The commentor states that there is no discussion in section 4.6.2.6, Biotic Resources, of the effects that LANL contaminants may have on wildlife.

• Response: Section 4.6.3.6 discusses the potential impacts of the No Action, management, and stewardship alternatives at LANL on terrestrial resources, wetlands, aquatic resources, and threatened and endangered species. LANL conducts ongoing studies to monitor the effects of LANL operations on biota. LANL monitors plants and wildlife populations on and near laboratory property to determine if there are impacts from LANL activities to individual animals or entire populations. LANL has issued numerous publications over the past 20 years regarding its findings, which do not indicate significant adverse effects to laboratory biota as a whole.

07 Cultural and Paleontological

07.01

One commentor asks what the Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS cultural and paleontological analysis involved.

• Response: The analysis involved is described in section 4.1.7 for the affected environment and environmental impacts descriptions. The affected environment descriptions resulted from documentary research, including examination of previous site documents such as archaeological and historic structure survey reports, reports of interviews with Native Americans, general texts about an area's history and geology, National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) guidelines, and discussions with the alternative sites and with the NRHP.
  
  The impacts analysis involved identifying the areas (and standing structures) that might be affected by the potential alternatives, comparing the affected environment resources data to the potentially affected areas, and determining whether or not the alternatives might affect cultural and paleontological resources.

07.02

The commentor states that DOE is taking and has taken land from the Western Shoshones. The commentor claims that DOE has ignored the native peoples who own the land at NTS and Yucca Mountain through treaties. Another commentor states that DOE should keep its word and return Indian land to its rightful owners.

• Response: DOE is aware that the Western Shoshone have disputed the U.S. Government's ownership of lands on NTS and Yucca Mountain. The land ownership issue has been brought to court on several occasions. In the early 1950s, the Western Shoshone filed a claim concerning the lands at issue under the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946. This Act provided that if a claim against the Government for unkept treaty promises was upheld, the tribe making the claim could receive only a monetary award, not land or other remuneration. In 1962, the Commission ruled that all Western Shoshone land titles had been extinguished, and later, to establish valuation for a monetary award, set July 1, 1872, as the date the land was taken. In 1976, the Commission awarded the Western Shoshone $26 million as payment for the land. The Western Shoshone refused to accept payment, arguing that rejection of the money meant that they had not been compensated and their claim to the land was still alive. With interest, the award, held in the U.S. Treasury in trust for the Western Shoshone, is now more than $100 million.
  
  The land ownership issue has been brought to court on several occasions. In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, considering only the issue of whether "payment" for the land had been made. In 1985, the Supreme Court held that the payment had been made in accordance with the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946. This constituted full and final settlement for the land. Whether or not the Western Shoshone accepted the payment had no effect on the transaction; the land was ruled to belong to the United States. Subsequent challenges to this ruling have been made before the U.S. Court of Appeals who reiterated the Supreme Court decision: the Western Shoshone have no right to the land. In response to a subsequent appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, letting the appellate court decision stand.
  
  The U.S. Government (and DOE) must abide by the current U.S. Supreme Court rulings on this issue. The U.S. Government is aware of significant disagreement with the rulings, especially by the Western Shoshone, and realizes there are likely to be additional challenges and appeals. The U.S. Government must abide by any new rulings made on this subject.