NEPA NON-COMPLIANCE

[Vernon Brechin <vbrechin@igc.org>]

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