Record of Decision for Final Environmental Impact Statement for Remediation of Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California
| Published date | 27 September 2019 |
| Citation | 84 FR 51149 |
| Record Number | 2019-21013 |
| Section | Notices |
| Court | Energy Department |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 188 (Friday, September 27, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51149-51156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21013]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision for Final Environmental Impact Statement for
Remediation of Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone of the Santa Susana
Field Laboratory, California
AGENCY: Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy.
[[Page 51150]]
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its decision to
demolish the 18 buildings it owns in Area IV of the Santa Susana Field
Laboratory (SSFL) and dispose of or recycle the materials off site.
This action will be taken in accordance with applicable federal, state,
and local requirements. (The demolition of five of the eighteen
buildings and the disposal of the resulting debris will be accomplished
pursuant to closure plans approved by the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control.) This action will also be taken consistent
with agreements and decisions resulting from interagency consultations
conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local
requirements, including the Programmatic Agreement executed with the
California State Historic Preservation Officer pursuant to the National
Historic Preservation Act and the Biological Opinion issued by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
ADDRESSES: This Record of Decision (ROD), the SSFL Area IV Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and related NEPA documents are
available at the DOE SSFL Area IV website (http://etec.energy.gov) and
the DOE NEPA website (http://energy.gov/nepa).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the SSFL
FEIS, the ROD, and DOE cleanup actions within Area IV of SSFL and the
Northern Buffer Zone, please contact Ms. Stephanie Jennings, ETEC
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy at [email protected]. For general
information on DOE's NEPA process, please contact Mr. Bill Ostrum,
Acting NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Environmental Management, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0103: Telephone: (202) 586-2513; or Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
DOE prepared the SSFL Area IV Final EIS (DOE/EIS-0402) in
accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C 4321 et seq.), CEQ NEPA regulations (40
CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR
part 1021). DOE announced its intent to prepare an EIS on May 16, 2008
(73 FR 28437) and conducted public scoping. DOE prepared a Draft EIS
and distributed it to interested parties. Following the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Notice of Availability of the
SSFL Area IV Draft EIS (82 FR 4336; January 13, 2017), DOE conducted
public hearings and invited comment on the Draft EIS. After considering
comments received on the Draft EIS, DOE addressed the comments and
prepared a Final EIS that was issued with EPA's Notice of Availability
(83 FR 67282; December 28, 2018).
SSFL, located on approximately 2,850 acres in the hills between
Chatsworth and Simi Valley, California, was developed as a remote site
to test rocket engines and conduct nuclear research. Rocket engine
testing by North American Aviation (later Rockwell International
(Rocketdyne)) began in 1947. In the mid-1950s, the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC), a predecessor agency to DOE, funded nuclear research
on a 90-acre parcel within Area IV of SSFL. The Energy Technology
Engineering Center (ETEC) was established on this parcel as a ``center
of excellence'' for liquid metals research. A total of 10 small
reactors were built and operated as part of nuclear research that ended
in 1982. DOE-directed liquid metals research continued until 1998.
During the years of research activities within Area IV, there were
more than 270 numbered structures supporting the research (structures
included occupied buildings, storage sheds, tanks, transformers,
loading docks, etc.). As the mission associated with each structure was
completed, the structure was decontaminated, demolished, and the debris
transported offsite for disposal. There was no DOE-sponsored
development within the Northern Buffer Zone (NBZ).
By 2006, only 18 DOE-owned numbered structures (buildings and
sheds) remained in Area IV. Operations within five of the structures
were conducted under two Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
permits issued by the State of California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC). The remaining 13 buildings were operated
pursuant to DOE requirements and other applicable laws and regulations.
The RCRA permitted structures at the Radioactive Materials Handling
Facility (RMHF) include:
Building 4021--Decontamination and Packaging Facility (for
radioactive material)
Building 4022--Radioactive Storage Building (for reactor fuel)
Building 4621--Interim storage facility for contaminated
equipment and source materials
The RCRA permitted structures at the Hazardous Waste Management
Facility (HWMF) include:
Building 4029--storage of non-radioactive chemical wastes
Building 4133--treatment of reactive (potassium and sodium)
metals
The non-RCRA-permitted structures include:
Building 4019--Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power (SNAP)
criticality tests
Building 4024--SNAP reactor testing
Building 4038--ETEC office building
Building 4057--sodium test rig housing/currently a warehouse
Building 4034--RMHF office building
Building 4044--RMHF clean shop
Structure 4075--RMHF radioactive waste storage area
Structure 4563--RMHF radioactive waste storage area
Structure 4658--RMHF guard shack
Building 4665--RMHF oxidation facility
Structure 4688--RMHF storage shed
Building 4462--Sodium Pump Test Facility (SPTF)
Building 4463--SPTF support building
Purpose and Need for Agency Action
DOE's purpose and need for action remains as stated in the SSFL
Area IV Final EIS. DOE needs to complete remediation of Area IV and the
NBZ to comply with applicable requirements for cleanup of radiological
and non-radiological hazardous substances. Pursuant to this ROD, DOE
has decided to remove the remaining 18 DOE-owned structures in Area IV
of SSFL in a manner that is protective of the environment and the
health and safety of the public and its workers. (The demolition of
five of these buildings requires closure plans approved by DTSC.)
Proposed Action
DOE's proposed action that is the subject of this ROD is to
demolish the 18 DOE-owned buildings in Area IV and transport the
resulting waste off site for disposal. Demolition of 13 facilities and
disposition of the resulting debris will be in accordance with DOE
requirements and applicable laws and regulations. Three facilities at
the RMHF and the two facilities comprising the HWMF will be closed in
accordance with California DTSC-approved RCRA facility closure plans.
By doing so, DOE will no longer have a long-term safety and
environmental liability at SSFL related to buildings, and removal is
consistent with the future land use as open space/recreational. This
action
[[Page 51151]]
allows DOE to sample soil beneath the buildings, completing soil
characterization for chemicals and radionuclides. In the SSFL Area IV
Final EIS, DOE identified the potential environmental impacts
associated with soil remediation, groundwater remediation, and building
demolition. However, this ROD only addresses DOE's decision for
building demolition. Subsequent ROD(s) will be developed when DOE makes
a decision for soil and groundwater remediation.
Alternatives
In the SSFL Area IV Draft and Final EIS, DOE evaluated the No
Action, Alternative Use of Area IV Buildings, and Building Removal
alternatives. The Alternative Use of Area IV Buildings was dismissed in
the SSFL Area IV Draft EIS as a viable alternative because DOE does not
own the land, and Boeing, the land owner, has established conservation
easements and agreements designating the future use of its land as open
space/recreational. There is no viable purpose for reuse of the
buildings and their removal is consistent with Boeing's land-use plans.
Under the No Action Alternative, none of the 18 structures would be
removed, but as required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
DOE would still be responsible for long-term surveillance, maintenance,
and security. The Building Removal Alternative would involve complete
removal of the buildings and foundations (except for the concrete slabs
of Buildings 4462 and 4463 which are owned by Boeing) with offsite
disposal of debris at permitted or authorized facilities in accordance
with its waste classification.
Potential Environmental Impacts
In the SSFL Area IV Final EIS DOE analyzed environmental issues and
the potential impacts, including land resources, geology and soils,
surface water, groundwater, biology, air quality and climate change,
noise, transportation and traffic, human health, waste management,
cultural resources, socioeconomics, environmental justice, and
sensitive-aged populations. DOE also evaluated the potential impacts of
the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, the short-
term uses of the environment, and the maintenance and enhancement of
long-term productivity. These analyses and results are described in the
SSFL Area IV Final EIS, including the Summary and in Section 2.8 of the
SSFL Area IV Final EIS.
In identifying the preferred alternative for building demolition
and disposal, and in making the decision announced in this ROD, DOE
considered the potential impacts that would result from the building
removal. Table S-8 of the SSFL Area IV Final EIS Summary also provides
a summary and comparison of potential environmental consequences
associated with each alternative. The impacts to the physical, social,
and natural environments will be minimal and manageable.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The environmentally preferable alternative is the complete removal
of all 18 buildings and structures. The deteriorating buildings have
the potential to release contamination (e.g., heavy metals) and could
be a safety risk to wildlife attempting to enter or occupy them.
Complete removal also is consistent with Boeing's commitment to return
its portion of SSFL to open space/recreational use.
Permits, Consultations, and Notifications
DOE will demolish and dispose of the RMHF and HWMF buildings in
accordance with the closure plans approved by California DTSC. DOE has
coordinated the processes associated with NEPA and Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, codified at 54 U.S.C. 306108, and
complied with Section 106 requirement through completion of the
Programmatic Agreement with the California State Historic Preservation
Officer (September 13, 2019). DOE also consulted with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) for compliance with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, codified at 16 U.S.C. 1536. Area IV of SSFL
includes federally-designated critical habitat for the endangered
Braunton's milk-vetch. USFWS issued its Biological Opinion related to
DOE's proposed actions on August 28, 2018 (http://www.ssflareaiveis.com/documents/feis/Biological%20Opinion.pdf).
Public and Agency Involvement
Following the 2007 Federal court decision resulting from a legal
challenge to the 2003 Environmental Assessment (EA) Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI), DOE published in the Federal Register its
Advanced Notice of Intent (ANOI) to prepare an EIS on October 17, 2007
(72 FR 58834). The ANOI was issued to request early comments and to
obtain input on the scope of the EIS. The NOI to prepare an EIS and to
announce scoping meetings was published in the Federal Register on May
16, 2008 (73 FR 28437). The public scoping period started on May 16,
2008 and continued through August 14, 2008. Scoping meetings were held
in Simi Valley, California (July 22, 2008), Northridge, California
(July 23, 2008), and Sacramento, California (July 24, 2008).
Preparation of the Draft EIS was delayed due to the need to collect
soil and groundwater characterization data for Area IV and the NBZ. The
lack of characterization data was one of EPA's and the State of
California's comments on the 2003 EA. EPA collected characterization
data for radionuclides from October 2010 to December 2012. DOE (under
DTSC oversight) collected characterization data for chemicals from
October 2010 to June 2014. While the characterization data were being
collected, DOE ETEC continued public involvement through release of
newsletters and conducting Community Alternatives Development Workshops
in 2012. Due to the length of time between the 2008 NOI and completion
of characterization, DOE published in the Federal Register on February
7, 2014, an Amended NOI for the SSFL Area IV EIS (79 FR 7439).
Additional scoping meetings were held in Simi Valley, California on
February 27, 2014, and in Agoura Hills/Calabasas, California on March
1, 2014. The scoping period ended on March 10, 2014. The Notice of
Availability of the SSFL Area IV Draft EIS was published in the Federal
Register on January 13, 2017 (82 FR 4336). An Amended Notice Extending
the Comment Period to April 13, 2017 was published in the Federal
Register on March 17, 2017 (82 FR 14218).
Comments Received on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for
Remediation of Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone of the Santa Susana
Field Laboratory
The Notice of Availability of the SSFL Area IV Final EIS was
published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2018 (83 FR 67282).
DOE distributed the SSFL Area IV Final EIS to Members of Congress,
State and local governments; other Federal agencies; culturally-
affiliated American Indian tribal governments; non-governmental
organizations; and other stakeholders including members of the public
who requested the document. Also, the SSFL Area IV Final EIS was made
available via the internet (http://www.SSFLAreaIVEIS.com). In the SSFL
Area IV Final EIS, DOE announced the preferred alternative for building
demolition as the Building Removal Alternative.
DOE received 885 letters or emails regarding the SSFL Area IV Final
EIS. DOE considered all comments contained in the letters and emails
received subsequent to publication of the FEIS. Some of the comments
[[Page 51152]]
reiterated issues raised during the comment period on the SSFL Area IV
Draft EIS, which DOE previously evaluated and provided responses to
those comments in the SSFL Area IV Final EIS, Volume 3, Comment/
Response Document. Comments previously considered and responded to on
the SSFL Area IV Draft EIS are not being addressed anew in this
response to comments on the Final EIS. Relevant to this ROD on Building
Demolition, DOE has no additional responses specifically to the
following items that were raised in comments on the SSFL Area IV Final
EIS which were addressed in the response to comments received on the
SSFL Area IV Draft EIS:
Comments that DOE needs to take responsibility and perform
a full cleanup; that less would not be protective of human health and
safety.
Comments that DOE's proposed cleanup alternatives would
leave contamination that could migrate from the site.
Comments that the health of the local population would be
threatened by the continued onsite presence of contaminants.
Comments that DOE must comply with all laws and
commitments, including the 2010 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC).
Comments that DOE needs to comply with RCRA standards,
enforced by DTSC, and that DOE does not intend to comply; the
alternatives presented are attempts by DOE to usurp DTSC authority.
Comments regarding DOE's failure to address only
alternatives that comply with the AOC.
Comments incorporated by reference by the City of Los
Angeles.
This section of the ROD addresses comments that are generally
applicable to the SSFL Area IV Final EIS, including any that are
relevant to the building demolition and disposal decision. Comments
generally applicable to the SSFL Area IV Final EIS address compliance
with laws and regulations (e.g., NEPA) and include those related to how
the Woolsey fire affected the site and the NEPA analysis.
DOE received comment letters from the EPA, Region IX; DTSC; The
Boeing Company; City of Los Angeles; Natural Resources Defense Council/
Committee to Bridge the Gap; Physicians for Social Responsibility--Los
Angeles; Rocketdyne Cleanup Coalition; Southern California Federation
of Scientists; and the SSFL Community Advisory Group. DOE also received
876 comment emails from individuals. The primary topics of the comments
are NEPA compliance, soil remediation, groundwater remediation, the
Biological Opinion, and the Woolsey Fire. No new comments specific to
the building demolition alternative, its impacts, or status of the
building removal preferred alternative were received on the SSFL Area
IV Final EIS. The topics below summarize the comments received related
to building demolition, the SSFL Area IV Final EIS, and the proposed
action in general. DOE has responded to each topic. Comments and
comment topics related to soil or groundwater remediation are not
addressed below because they are not relevant to the decision being
made in this ROD. Comments related to soil and groundwater remediation
will be addressed in the future ROD(s). DOE reviewed and responded to
all comments received through March 28, 2019. There were no comments
received after that date.
Topic A--National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance:
Commenters stated that DOE violated NEPA by issuing a SSFL Area IV
Final EIS that was substantially changed from the SSFL Area IV Draft
EIS published for public comment. Commenters asserted that 50 to 60
percent of the SSFL Area IV Final EIS was new material that the public
had not been provided an opportunity to review and comment on and DOE
had therefore, not provided its responses to any such comments.
Commenters asserted that DOE failed to comply with its duties under the
law or its failure to include certain information in the Draft EIS for
public review is a violation of NEPA. A commenter repeated an assertion
made in the comments on the Draft EIS that the EIS violates NEPA
because it evaluates actions that DOE does not have the discretion to
take.
Various requests were made regarding review of the SSFL Area IV
Final EIS. Some commenters requested that the review period for the
SSFL Area IV Final EIS be extended. Some commenters requested
recirculating the SSFL Area IV Final EIS for public comment and others
requested withdrawing the current document and issuing a new SSFL Area
IV Final EIS that the commenters asserted would be compliant with NEPA.
Response: Commenters are incorrect in their assertion that DOE has
violated NEPA. NEPA regulations require agencies to analyze the
potential environmental impacts associated with a proposed action, to
issue a Draft EIS for public comment (40 CFR 1503.1), and to respond to
comments (40 CFR 1503.4). NEPA regulations also state that the agency
may not make a decision on a proposed action until 30 days after the
Federal Register announcement of a final EIS (40 CFR 1506.10). In
accordance with NEPA regulations, in preparing the Final EIS, DOE made
revisions to reflect more recent information and to respond to comments
received on the SSFL Area IV Draft EIS. Much of the additional material
in the Final EIS was in response to comments on the Draft EIS. In
Section 1.11 of the Final EIS, DOE summarized the major factors that
resulted in changes. Comments that resulted in changes are also
summarized and described in greater detail in Volume 3, the Comment
Response Document. The Federal Register notification of the SSFL Area
IV Final EIS was published on December 28, 2018, and indicated that a
30-day review period would end on January 28, 2019. During the period
from December 28, 2018, until the issuance of this ROD, DOE received
885 submittals regarding the SSFL Area IV Final EIS. DOE received
comments through March 28, 2019 and considered those comments in the
development of this ROD. There were no comments received after March
28, 2019.
By submitting comments on the SSFL Area IV Final EIS, organizations
and individuals demonstrated that they did have an opportunity to
review and comment on the Area IV Final EIS. Having reviewed and
considered comments received, DOE has determined that there is no need
to reissue the SSFL Area IV Final EIS (or issue a new or supplemental
EIS). DOE has met its obligations under NEPA for public input and
review. Public involvement and review opportunities included two
scoping periods, alternatives development workshops, and a comment
period on the Draft EIS. Additionally, DOE considered comments received
on the SSFL Area IV Final EIS.
Topic B--Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS: Commenters stated
that DOE failed to substantively and adequately respond to comments
received on the SSFL Area IV Draft EIS. Commenters noted that there are
many pages purporting to respond to comments, but claimed that the
responses do not meet DOE's requirements under NEPA. Some commenters
also claimed that DOE changed the EIS without a meaningful explanation
of the changes in responding to the comments on the SSFL Area IV Draft
EIS. One commenter specifically noted that ``DOE has not fairly
addressed opposing scientific and legal viewpoints.''
Response: DOE carefully reviewed, considered and responded to all
[[Page 51153]]
comments on the SSFL Area IV Draft EIS. The commenters failed to
provide examples to support their allegations that DOE did not
substantively and adequately respond to comments on the SSFL Area IV
Draft EIS. One commenter cited a federal court decision, but failed to
provide a specific instance of its relevance to the SSFL Area IV Final
EIS content. DOE performed a careful review and analysis of the comment
documents (letters, emails, hearing transcripts) received on the SSFL
Area IV Draft EIS to identify individual comments. DOE performed a
comment-by-comment review and prepared an individual response to each
comment. The resulting Comment Response Document (Volume 3 of the SSFL
Area IV Final EIS) represents 1,363 comment documents. The comments and
responses to those comments can be found in the 1,675 pages in the
Comment Response Document.
Topic C--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance:
Commenters stated that the SSFL Area IV Final EIS violated RCRA.
Commenters repeated a comment made on the SSFL Area IV Draft EIS, which
DTSC, as the regulator, rather than DOE, decides how much contamination
must be cleaned up.
Response: The preparation and issuance of the SSFL Area IV Final
EIS, which is not a decision document, is not a violation of RCRA. DOE
recognizes that DTSC has regulatory authority for RCRA decisions and
introduced DTSC's authorities on page 1-4 of the SSFL Area IV Final
EIS. As discussed in the SSFL Area IV Final EIS (Section 1.9), DOE has
prepared and submitted to DTSC RCRA closure plans addressing DOE's five
RCRA-regulated buildings in Area IV.
Topic D--Misrepresentation of Related Documents: Commenters were
concerned that DOE mischaracterizes the AOC and the 2007 Federal court
order in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Committee to Bridge
the Gap, and City of Los Angeles v. Department of Energy, et al. (NRDC
v. DOE), (Case No. 3:04-CV-04448-SC, May 7, 2007). The commenter stated
that DOE implies that its obligations under the AOC are ``suspended''
because of a section of the AOC stating that if there are
inconsistencies between the AOC and the court's decision, DOE would
work with the parties to request any relief needed. The commenter
asserts that this ruling applied only to the need to remove DOE
buildings in order to take soil measurements beneath them for the SSFL
Area IV Final EIS.
Response: In the SSFL Area IV Final EIS, DOE characterized the
relationship of the EIS, AOC, and 2007 Federal court order in Sections
1.3, 1.9, 1.11, 2.2, 2.7, and Comment Response Document, Section 2.2.
Claims that DOE breached the AOC or failed to comply with the AOC were
addressed in the response to comments on the SSFL Area IV Draft EIS
(e.g., response to comment 72-2). Section 6.2 of the AOC states: ``In
the event that DOE and DTSC are not successful in obtaining relief from
that order, DOE's obligations under this Order shall be stayed. The
Parties shall thereupon undertake to agree upon a procedure for
environmental review that would meet the requirements of the injunction
in NRDC v. DOE and make any necessary modifications to this Order.''
Since the parties did not get relief from the Order, the SSFL Area IV
Draft and Final EIS provide the required environmental review and,
pursuant to the AOC, DOE will work with DTSC to make any appropriate
modifications to the AOC.
Topic E--Biological Opinion Development Process: Commenters
submitted a number of comments raising concerns about the development
and use of the Biological Opinion developed by the USFWS. Some
commenters took issue with the manner in which DOE consulted with
USFWS, asserting that DOE requested consultation for an action that
would violate the AOC. Commenters note that the Biological Opinion does
not make a jeopardy determination. Commenters therefore asserted that
no exception to the AOC criterion is allowed, because the Biological
Opinion issued makes no finding that the cleanup action would violate
specific sections of the Endangered Species Act as identified in the
AOC. A commenter also implied that there were misrepresentations in the
Biological Assessment prepared by DOE that USFWS relied on to prepare
the Biological Opinion.
Response: DOE consulted appropriately with the USFWS in the
development of the Biological Opinion for remediation of Area IV and
the NBZ. A Biological Opinion is prepared by the USFWS in compliance
with its obligations under the Endangered Species Act. DOE initiated
informal consultation with USFWS in June 2013 relative to the AOC soil
cleanup in Area IV. There were seven meetings with USFWS during the
informal consultation period, six attended by DTSC staff. Formal
consultation started in January 2018, after DOE answered the USFWS'
questions regarding the project and the AOC exemption process. There
were two formal consultation meetings with USFWS in 2018. Pursuant to
the USFWS Biological Opinion, the formal consultation was based on the
following USFWS statement, which was provided on page 1 of its
Biological Opinion: ``For purposes of section 7 consultation, the AOC
provides that impacts to species or habitat protected under the
Endangered Species Act may be considered as possible exemptions from
the cleanup standard specified herein only to the extent that the
federal Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to a request by DOE for
consultation, issues a Biological Opinion with a determination that
implementation of the cleanup action would violate Section 7(a)2 or
Section 9 of the ESA, and no reasonable and prudent measures or
reasonable or prudent alternatives exist that would allow for the use
of the specific cleanup standard in that portion of the site.'' The
USFWS prefers to work with project proponents (i.e., engage in
consultation) such that the need for a jeopardy opinion can be avoided.
The USFWS consults with project proponents to attempt to develop
alternatives to the action, if possible, so that a jeopardy opinion
would not be necessary. In a letter dated February 2, 2017, the USFWS
responded to a request by DOE for technical assistance, and outlined
the direct and substantial effects to the federally endangered
Braunton's milk-vetch and its critical habitat that would result from a
cleanup to background and recommended that DOE exercise an exemption to
the AOC for the protection of the species. The exemption process that
was described in the Draft EIS (page 2-18) and repeated in the SSFL
Area IV Final EIS was the foundation of the consultation between DOE
and USFWS, which resulted in the protection of endangered species at
SSFL. Commenters provided no examples of claims of misrepresentation in
the Biological Assessment, other than those addressed above regarding
the AOC.
Topic F--Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion Were Not
Available for the Draft EIS: Commenters stated concerns that the
Biological Assessment and the Biological Opinion were not included in
the SSFL Area IV Draft EIS nor made available during the Draft EIS
process, nor made available during the Draft EIS process, and therefore
were unavailable for review. As a consequence, commenters were
concerned that the Biological Opinion has not been subjected to public
scrutiny or comment. Another commenter stated that not having the
Biological Opinion in the SSFL Area IV Draft EIS did not allow an
opportunity for public comment, and was thus a violation of NEPA.
Response: The lack of public review of the Biological Assessment or
[[Page 51154]]
Biological Opinion is not an issue under NEPA. DOE did not violate NEPA
because of the lack of public review of the Biological Assessment or
Biological Opinion. The Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion
are required by the Endangered Species Act and USFWS regulations. The
Biological Assessment is prepared by the project proponent for use by
the USFWS in preparing the Biological Opinion. Nevertheless, the
content of the Biological Assessment formed the basis of Section 3.5,
Biological Resources (Affected Environment--baseline conditions) and
Section 4.5, Biological Resources (Environmental Consequences--impact
assessment) that were included in the SSFL Area IV Draft EIS. The
exemption process for protection of endangered species that USFWS used
in formulating its Biological Opinion was described in the SSFL Area IV
Draft EIS (page 2-18) and therefore, was available for comment. It
remained the same process as is analyzed in the SSFL Area IV Final EIS.
Because the Biological Opinion is a USFWS document, its content and
references are within the purview of the USFWS. The County of Los
Angeles had requested that the SSFL Area IV Draft EIS be recirculated
after completion of the Biological Opinion for additional public
review. DOE did not recirculate the SSFL Area IV Draft EIS. Data from
the USFWS Biological Opinion was integrated into this SSFL Area IV
Final EIS, (for example, used to refine the extent of the areas in
which the exemption process would be applied).
Topic G--Woolsey Fire Impact on the Braunton's Milk-vetch:
Commenters made a number of observations regarding the Braunton's milk-
vetch with respect to the Woolsey Fire. They noted that the fire burned
a portion of Area IV that is identified as primary habitat for
Braunton's milk-vetch. A commenter also noted that Braunton's milk-
vetch is the ``one endangered plant in Area IV and the NBZ. . . .''
Commenters expressed the belief that because the fire had burned the
Braunton's milk-vetch habitat, that there was no longer a need for an
exception to cleaning up contamination in that area.
Response: These comments reflect a misunderstanding of the southern
California fire ecology and this species. The milk-vetch requires soil
disturbance, either by fire or mechanical means, to germinate. It
exists as a plant for about 5 to 7 years producing seeds that remain in
the soil until the next disturbance. The last disturbance was EPA's
2010 survey of Area IV. Species germination following that disturbance
is documented, but most of those plants had completed their life cycle
by the time of the recent fire. Further, not all of the remaining
plants were burned by the Woolsey fire. The plant also germinated
following the 2005 Topanga fire as discussed on pages 3-79 of the SSFL
Area IV Final EIS. DOE is engaged in monitoring of germination and the
recovery of the burned area following the 2018 fire. In compliance with
the Endangered Species Act and the AOC, it remains necessary and
appropriate for DOE to protect the Braunton's milk-vetch habitat.
Topic H--Woolsey Fire: Commenters expressed concern that the
Woolsey fire was not included in and accounted for in the SSFL Area IV
Final EIS. Commenters noted that the fire occurred before the issuance
of the SSFL Area IV Final EIS and stated that the effects of the fire
could therefore, have been evaluated. Using maps from the SSFL Area IV
Final EIS and the DTSC Interim Summary Report of Woolsey Fire (https://bit.ly/2m2QZLc) commenters included maps in their comments reflecting
their understanding of the extent of the burned area within Area IV.
Citing information from DOE provided in informational emails or news
articles, commenters noted that DOE initially indicated that Area IV
had not been affected by the fire and later stated that 80 percent of
SSFL had been burned. Commenters also noted that significant portions
of SSFL were burned and hypothesized that contamination was mobilized
and winds likely moved contamination to new areas. Commenters also
claimed as a result of this fire that the EIS is flawed in asserting
that there is no public health risk from leaving contamination in
place, because there is a potential for future fires to cause offsite
releases. Commenters stated that regardless of the damage to the
Braunton's milk-vetch habitat, the Final EIS should have discussed the
effects of the fire on baseline conditions. Further, commenters
indicated that DOE has not considered the impacts of the fire on its
preferred alternatives and therefore no ROD can lawfully be based on
the Final EIS.
Response: Because the fire burned a portion of SSFL, DOE
understands that there is concern in communities near the site about
the effects of the fire on the contamination on site and the analysis
in the SSFL Area IV Final EIS. The fire did not burn any Area IV
buildings or any locations, either in Area IV or the NBZ with elevated
soil contamination, and none of the Area IV groundwater cleanup
locations were affected. Subsequent to the fire, DOE prepared a
separate technical report http://www.ssflareaiveis.com that evaluates
the impacts of the fire on Area IV and the NBZ and whether the fire had
any effect on the analyses and conclusions in the SSFL Area IV Final
EIS. In that report, DOE corrects the location of the line showing the
extent of the burned portion of Area IV. The report's conclusion is
that the fire had no substantive effect on the analyses in the SSFL
Area IV Final EIS or on the selection of the Preferred Alternative for
buildings. Because the fire did not result in substantial changes and
significant new information related to the buildings (DOE NEPA
regulation 40 CFR part 1502, Section 1502.9), it was determined that
there was no need to prepare a Supplemental EIS or Supplement Analysis.
See Topic G for the effect of the fire on the Braunton's milk-vetch.
Regarding comments that the fire resulted in the release of
contamination, DOE, Boeing, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration performed air sampling during and following the fire and
DTSC, EPA, and others conducted sampling immediately post-fire. As
reported in the DTSC Interim Summary Report of Woolsey Fire,
measurements and analyses indicate that no radioactive or hazardous
materials associated with contamination of SSFL were released by the
fire. These results are reasonably consistent with those reported
following the 2005 Topanga fire as presented in Section 3.9 of the SSFL
Area IV Final EIS.
Topic I--Risk Assessment Process: Commenters stated that the risk
assessment presented in the SSFL Area IV Final EIS was new. A commenter
also claimed that the process did not follow EPA guidance.
Response: The SSFL Area IV Final EIS includes risk assessments of
onsite and offsite impacts. The risk assessment presented in Appendix G
of the SSFL Area IV Final EIS evaluates potential impacts on the
offsite public from implementation of the building demolition and soil
remediation alternatives. This analysis was new in the SSFL Area IV
Final EIS. It was added in response to comments on the Draft EIS
requesting a quantitative analysis of offsite impacts.
Risk assessments of onsite impacts were not new in the SSFL Area IV
Final EIS (Section 4.9.1 Draft EIS). Comments related to risk
assessments as they concern onsite risks associated with soil
remediation, including the comment regarding EPA guidance, are not
addressed in this ROD; DOE will
[[Page 51155]]
address those comments in a future ROD for soil remediation.
Additional Topics: A number of additional topics related to the
soil and groundwater remediation alternatives were identified in
comments on the SSFL Area IV Final EIS. Commenters were concerned that
the Preferred Alternative for soil remediation (an open space scenario
based on a recreational user) was not one of the alternatives
identified in the SSFL Area IV Draft EIS (January 2017) and had not
been subject to public review and comment. Commenters took issue with
how DOE incorporated Boeing's two Grant Deeds of Conservation Easement
and Agreements (April and November 2017) and also were concerned that
the alternative left large amounts of contaminated soil on site, and
was inconsistent with the AOC. Commenters repeated claims that SSFL is
extensively contaminated and were concerned that failing to clean soil
to background would place the surrounding community at risk. Other
commenters expressed support for a risk-based alternative for cleanup
of Area IV and the NBZ. A commenter was concerned that the discussion
of soil remediation actions does not include sufficient data or
discussion to determine the elements of the Soil Remedial Action
Implementation Plan (SRAIP) as required by the AOC. The commenter noted
that the SSFL Area IV Final EIS fails to include sufficient information
to address how DOE would conduct the remediation, the areas where soil
remediation would occur, areas identified for biological and cultural
exemptions, mitigation measures, and a schedule for implementation.
Regarding DOE's Preferred Alternative for groundwater remediation,
commenters were concerned that it would not adequately clean up
groundwater and relied too much on natural attenuation.
Response: The focus of the additional topics summarized above is on
the SSFL Area IV Final EIS discussion and analysis of soil and
groundwater remediation. DOE is not making a decision regarding soil or
groundwater remediation in this ROD. Consequently, DOE is deferring
responses to these comments to a future ROD(s) announcing a decision on
cleanup of soil and groundwater.
DOE Comment Review Conclusion
DOE has considered these comments and concludes that they do not
present substantial changes to a proposal or significant new
circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and
bearing on the proposed action or its impacts within the meaning of 40
CFR 1502.9(c) and 10 CFR 1021.314(a) and therefore do not require
preparation of a supplement analysis or a supplemental EIS.
Decision
DOE-EM has decided to implement the Building Removal Alternative,
its Preferred Alternative for building demolition, as described in the
SSFL Area IV Final EIS. Under this alternative, DOE-EM will prepare
demolition/disposal plans for each building describing: (1) Processes
for characterizing building materials for the presence of hazardous
materials and radionuclides; (2) processes for collecting, handling,
transporting, and disposing of debris containing hazardous materials
and radionuclides; and (3) the identification of the facilities
receiving the materials. The demolition/disposal plans will also
describe the handling, transporting, and disposing of building debris
in accordance with disposal facility waste acceptance criteria.
Building demolition will be performed using standard mechanized
equipment and transported using standard highway trucks. Demolition
materials will be sampled for comparison with the waste acceptance
criteria of the receiving facilities prior to or during building
demolition. Some material will be containerized for transport.
Following building removal DOE will prepare and implement plans for
soil sampling beneath the building footprints. This will allow DOE to
complete soil characterization and decision plans for soil and
groundwater remediation.
DOE has prepared RCRA Closure Plans for the RMHF (3 buildings) and
HWMF (2 buildings). DOE submitted the plans to DTSC for approval in
October 2016. On August 13, 2018, DTSC announced the plans to be
complete and initiated a public comment period. The public comment
period ran from August 13, 2018, to October 12, 2018. The RCRA closure
plans are also subject to review under the California Environmental
Quality Act. In October 2017, DTSC released a draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Report describing cleanup actions for the entirety
of SSFL. DOE will demolish and remove the RCRA-permitted buildings/
structures at the RMHF and HWMF and clean up the sites to meet the
requirements in the DTSC-approved closure plans.
In reaching this decision, DOE balanced the environmental
information in the Final EIS, potential environmental impacts of
building demolition and debris transportation, current and future
mission needs, technical and security considerations, availability of
resources, and public comments on the SSFL Area IV Draft and Final EIS.
DOE no longer has a need for any of the buildings and by removing them
DOE will facilitate accomplishment of its environmental management
program initiatives. Some buildings still contain radionuclides
imbedded in building material, and removal of the buildings with
disposal of the radiological materials at a regulated facility provides
long-term protection from the materials. The future land use of the
Area IV property is open space/recreational, and removal of the
buildings is consistent with that future land use. Removal of the
buildings also allows for access to soil for final soil sampling.
Building demolition and debris transportation can be conducted in a
manner that is protective of the local Area IV environment and
populations along the transport route. Implementing the Preferred
Alternative will allow DOE to continue its progress of cleaning up
legacy nuclear research properties.
Mitigation Measures
Building demolition and debris transportation could result in
airborne emissions of various pollutants in diesel exhaust, and
potential pollutants including radionuclides, metals, and organic
constituents during demolition activities. This decision adopts the
mitigation and monitoring measures relevant to building demolition that
are identified in Chapter 6 of the Final EIS, the Programmatic
Agreement, and the Biological Opinion. Practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative for building
demolition have been, or will be, adopted. Prior to building
demolition, DOE will prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan that will
address how air emissions be will minimized. Diesel emissions will be
controlled through using demolition equipment and highway trucks fitted
with pollution control equipment maintained to manufacturer
specifications. Particulate emissions during building demolition will
be controlled using best available control measures including water
sprays. Toxic chemicals and radionuclides found in debris will be
packaged to prevent releases during transportation. Occupational safety
risks to workers will be minimized by adherence to Federal and state
occupational safety laws, and DOE requirements, regulations, and
orders. Workers will also be protected by use of engineering and
administrative controls. Emergency preparedness will also include an
[[Page 51156]]
Accident Preparedness Program to address protection of the public
during the transportation of building materials. Storm water control
best management practices will be implemented to prevent surface water
runoff from demolition sites.
Signed at Washington, DC, on September 23, 2019.
William I. White,
Senior Advisor for Environmental Management to the Under Secretary for
Science.
[FR Doc. 2019-21013 Filed 9-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
