From: | Vernon Brechin <vbrechin@igc.org> |
Date: | Tue, 28 May 1996 12:27:13 -0700 (PDT) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | NEPA NON-COMPLIANCE |
From: Vernon Brechin <vbrechin@igc.org> ================================================================== ***** WARNING: This is a very long file ***** THe following was forwarded to me and is regarding Department of Energy issues. =============================================================== The following letter is being prepared to send to Secretary O'Leary before the end of the month. Its general purpose is to stop, if possible, portions of the stockpile stewardship and management program (like the "subcritical" tests) and to open a debate on U.S. nuclear policy with pressure from the disarmament side. To sign on contact: Greg Mello at the Los Alamos Study Group by the end of the day Tuesday: lasg@igc.org 505.982.7747 with your name and your (U.S.) organization's name. ********************* May 29, 1996 The Honorable Hazel O'Leary Secretary of Energy 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington, DC 20585 Re: Draft Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Dear Secretary O'Leary: We are writing to express our profound disappointment and concern about your Department's draft Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SS&M PEIS or PEIS). We were, frankly, surprised by the depth and breadth of its noncompliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all the more so because under your leadership, many of us have come to expect a higher level of performance from the Department in this area. Regrettably, despite the considerable effort expended on it, the Department's draft SS&M PEIS precludes meaningful analysis of the SS&M program by failing to analyze the lion's share of the projects that constitute the program and by failing to discuss the full spectrum of reasonable alternatives. The PEIS is so fundamentally flawed that even a substantially revised version of the present draft will not satisfy NEPA requirements. Instead, the Department must begin by withdrawing the current draft PEIS. The revised scope of a new draft PEIS should and we believe could be swiftly established by taking into account the multitude of comments already received (and largely ignored) during the previous scoping process, and by incorporating the comments received on the present draft. The Department would then issue a new draft for public comment. In conjunction with the Department's withdrawal of the draft SS&M PEIS, it will be necessary for the Department to place a number of SS&M projects on hold pending completion of an adequate PEIS and subsequent site-specific analyses. The reasons for these conclusions are many and have been detailed in comments numerous organizations have already provided. Without attempting to recap here the full range of issues raised in all of our comments, perhaps the most important and central of them are these: The Department has inappropriately excluded its current stockpile stewardship program, including facilities now under construction, from programmatic analysis by including them in a mis-named, and ever-growing, "no action" alternative; Virtually all the planned stockpile stewardship facilities are excluded from analysis because they are said to be too far in the future, when in fact they are not--indeed, the Department is already investing considerable sums in designing, and developing the technology for, such facilities; The only three stockpile stewardship facilities actually analyzed in the PEIS are presented without meaningful alternatives and without supporting programmatic analysis, let alone any prior programmatic record of decision; and Overall, there are no programmatic alternatives analyzed for stockpile stewardship, and only siting alternatives are analyzed for stockpile management. The result is that there is no meaningful programmatic analysis of alternatives for stockpile stewardship and management. A short list of omitted reasonable alternatives would include: options implementing gradual but complete denuclearization (a reasonable alternative by virtue of U.S. obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty); options involving maintenance of a minimal stockpile of one to ten warheads, and a stockpile in the range of 100-500 warheads, the present size of the arsenals of the declared nuclear weapon states except Russia; options involving simple maintenance and remanufacturing of the arsenal; options involving fewer nuclear labs; options involving Nevada Test Site closure; as well as options involving removing redundant technologies from each of the Department's SS&M subprograms, which would enable DOE to meet its stated objectives with fewer facilities, much lower costs, and greatly lessened environmental impacts. It is by no means just the SS&M PEIS as a document which concerns us, but the ongoing real projects in the stockpile stewardship and management program that are now proceeding prior to programmatic NEPA analysis. In this regard, it is important to note that DOE initiated the environmental review for rebuilding its nuclear weapons complex almost five years ago. In the interim, DOE has initiated or completed hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new facilities and facilities upgrades throughout the nuclear weapons complex, implementing substantial portions of the program which the subject PEIS and its predecessors were supposed to review. Many of these projects have as a result reached a stage of investment or commitment to completion likely to determine subsequent development or restrict later alternatives, in violation of NEPA. While we greatly appreciate your intention to increase the Department's environmental compliance, we note that in several instances this compliance has still been achieved only pursuant to litigation, or the threat of litigation, by public interest groups. In view of DOE's manifest and willful noncompliance with both the letter and spirit of NEPA and its implementing regulations in preparing the current draft PEIS, we respectfully ask you to withdraw it, and to meet with our designated representatives regarding the PEIS and the projects now proceeding without adequate programmatic analysis, in violation of NEPA. While we regret the additional burden on the Department that may be occasioned by our request, we note that this burden is entirely of the Department's own making. Had DOE taken its NEPA programmatic review obligations--and previously submitted public comments--seriously, the current situation would in all likelihood not have arisen. While we are prepared to negotiate in good faith, we cannot stand idly by while the Department's hasty, ill-considered, and on-going actions in pursuit of its nuclear weapons SS&M program effectively render NEPA a dead letter. That we will not do. The starting point for negotiations must be the Department's full compliance with its NEPA obligations. Sincerely, many organizations The following groups participated in drafting this letter or are already signed on: American Friends Service Committee (Denver), Citizen Alert, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Economists Allied for Arms Reductions, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Institute for Science and Security, Los Alamos Study Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Tri-Valley CAREs, and Western States Legal Foundation. Depending on DOE's response to the views expressed in this letter, the process of negotiation may result in litigation against DOE for failing to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A core group of organizations who have been working on this issue will work with a legal team led by NRDC to resolve or litigate outstanding NEPA issues with DOE. The more groups signing on to the original letter, the greater the weight it and the susequent legal negotiations will have. This letter and process is only one facet of a broader political and public education campaign to restrain DOE's excessive and provocative stockpile stewardship and management program. So if you can, PLEASE SIGN ON NOW! Thank you, Greg Mello Los Alamos Study Group 212 E. Marcy St. Santa Fe, NM 87501 505-982-7747 lasg@igc.org | |
Prev by Date: Who's On Board the Public's Ship? Next by Date: EPA Federal Register ListServe Service | |
Prev by Thread: Who's On Board the Public's Ship? Next by Thread: EPA Federal Register ListServe Service |