• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

SECTION 3 - PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

This section presents a brief description of the proposed action including LLNL and SNL, Livermore near-term (within 5 to 10 years) proposed projects. Reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (section 3.2), and alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed review (section 3.3) are also presented. Comparison of the impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives are included in Tables 3-10 and 3-11 at the end of this section. Although the alternatives are developed to meet separate NEPA and CEQA requirements, DOE and UC may consider and select any appropriate alternative within the scope of each of their authorities.

3.1 PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action for the purposes of the EIS is the continued operation of LLNL and SNL, Livermore⁽¹⁾ including near-term (within 5 to 10 years) proposed projects. The proposed action, therefore, necessarily includes current operations plus programmatic enhancements⁽²⁾ and facility modifications pursuant to research and development missions established for the Laboratories by Congress and the President.

The proposed action for the EIR is the renewal of the contract between DOE and UC for UC's continued operation and management of LLNL from October 1, 1992, through September 30, 1997.

The nature of a sitewide EIS and a programmatic EIR encourages disclosure of any projects known or planned at the time of preparation. The proposed projects included in the proposed action are listed in subsequent tables in this section. The proposed action includes projects identified and discussed for which very little definite information exists; these are characterized as "tentative" under the Funding Status column of Table 3-1. Appropriate environmental documentation will be prepared for these tentative projects when they can be thoroughly described and analyzed. Other proposed projects would be reviewed for further environmental documentation if they are approved for funding and if this document does not adequately cover their construction and operations.

The proposed action at both LLNL and SNL, Livermore includes such routine activities as infrastructure and building maintenance, minor modification to buildings, general landscaping, road maintenance, and similar support activities.

For purposes of defining this EIS/EIR's proposed action, it is assumed that along with the proposed projects, there would be increases in certain areas that may have the potential to impact the environment. For example, there would be increases in the number of personnel onsite. Also, the information available shows that the amounts of certain radioactive materials may increase slightly under the proposed action, while a decrease in the LLNL Livermore site plutonium and tritium inventories would contribute to a decrease in the total inventory of other radioactive materials. Because accurate chemical usage or waste generation levels cannot be predicted with certainty in a research setting, this EIS/EIR assumes that they would increase over the next 10 years in the same proportion as the gross square footage under the proposed action. The projected increases are discussed in section 4.15 for each site, and may be found in Table 4.15-1 for the LLNL Livermore site, Table 4.15-2 for LLNL Site 300, and Table 4.15-3 for SNL, Livermore. Actual increases in square footage may be lower because some projects would replace existing facilities resulting in no net increase in space.

The list of facilities used for projecting the increased growth in square feet at the Laboratories is based on information available in January, 1992. The facilities listed, regardless of funding status, constitute the total square footage of development planned as part of this proposed action. The names and funding status of the facilities may vary from year to year in response to changing funding levels and programmatic needs. The overall projection of a 9 percent increase in square footage for LLNL and a 6 percent increase for SNL, Livermore is expected to bound the actual increases.

As represented by near-term (within 5 to 10 years) proposed projects, the proposed action has characteristics described below.

Table 3-1 LLNL Livermore Site Program ProjectionsNew Facilities Under the Proposed Action

Project Name	Proposed Gross Sq Ft	Funding Statusa	Map Loc.b	Principal Use
				Office	Lab and Research	Misc.
Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility (DWTF)	91,400	Funded (in Redesign)	F3	Yes		Yes
Atmospheric Emergency Response Facility	40,000	Proposed	P1	Yes	Yes
ICF Users Support Facility	89,500	Proposed	P15	Yes	Yes
Verification, Intelligence, and Special Technology Analysis (VISTA) Center (formerly Foreign Technology Assessment Center)	46,700	Proposed	P16	Yes	Yes
Genomics Research Laboratory	41,140	Proposed	P18	Yes	Yes
Hazards Control Health & Safety Facility	35,000	Proposed	Not available	Yes	Yes
Waste Minimization Project	7,500	Proposed	Not available		Yes
Hazards Control Fire Sciences Facility	7,000	Proposed	P4	Yes	Yes
Atomic Physics Research Lab	45,000	Proposed	Not available	Yes	Yes
Non-Proliferation Annex (formerly Treaty Verification Center)	20,000	Tentative	P17	Yes	Yes
Mixed Waste Treatment Facility	20,000	Tentative	P19			Yes
Earth Sciences Building	75,700	Proposed	Not available	Yes	Yes
Plutonium Facility Increment V	15,000	Proposed	P20	Yes	Yes	Yes

^a For funding status, proposed indicates planned but not yet funded projects, and tentative indicates that funding is uncertain.
^bFor map locations, see Appendix A, Figure A-8.

3.1.1 LLNL Livermore Site

Proposed new facilities at the LLNL Livermore site would add approximately 530,000 gross sq ft, increasing current developed space by approximately 9 percent as described below. Consistent with existing space use, the new facilities would be mostly light laboratory and office space. Table 3-1 provides general information about these proposed building projects. New facilities will comply with the Secretary of Energy's 10-point initiative to modernize DOE facilities to meet current and future environmental, safety, and health standards (DOE, 1989).

Examples of the largest proposed new facilities include:

• The Decontamination/Waste Treatment Facility (DWTF) would replace and upgrade current LLNL Livermore site waste management facilities used to process, treat, and store hazardous, radioactive, and mixed wastes. The approximately 91,400 sq ft DWTF waste management complex will consist of several buildings of varying size and function and will substantially expand LLNL's capability for treating these wastes. The DWTF would receive LLNL-generated medical, hazardous, low-level radioactive, and low-level mixed wastes for consolidation, processing, treatment, and packaging before shipment and disposal offsite. Increased onsite waste treatment would substantially decrease the volume of offsite waste shipments.
• The Inertial Confinement Fusion Users Support Facility would include administrative and clean-room areas, and would house approximately 80 laboratory and support personnel. This facility would provide a laser optics support laboratory and clean room assembly areas. The project would support the ongoing inertial confinement fusion program by providing experiment preparation and support areas for the inertial confinement fusion users of LLNL's NOVA facility (LLNL, 1991a). The building design would include safety, energy conservation, and environmental considerations. This facility will total approximately 89,500 sq ft.
• The Earth Sciences Building would provide approximately 75,700 sq ft of office and light laboratory space for approximately 270 people, and space for interdisciplinary environmental restoration and waste management research, development and technology, energy, and defense program activities.
• The Verification, Intelligence, and Special Technology Analysis (VISTA) Center (formerly the Foreign Technology Assessment Center or FTAC) would provide approximately 46,200 sq ft of space in an addition to Non-Proliferation, Arms Control, and International Security Program's, Building 261. The building would provide capability for conducting intelligence and treaty verification analysis with full access to all levels of required source information.

(Additional information on all projects included in the proposed action is presented in Appendix A).

The projected near-term increase of approximately 530,000 gross sq ft, or 9 percent over the 10 year period, is used to provide a conservative analysis of environmental impacts from the proposed action. Again, actual increase in square footage may be lower because some projects may replace existing facilities resulting in no actual increase in space. Additionally, funding constraints through the near-term are expected to eliminate or severely restrict projected construction.

Based on an assumed 20 percent increase in employment over 10 years, DOE anticipates that the increase in personnel would be 2050 for the proposed action.

It is estimated that the administrative limit for tritium use in Buildings 298, 331, and 391 would be a total of 10 g divided among the three buildings with no single building having more than 5 g. Use of tritium in small amounts as listed in Table A-23 in Appendix A would remain substantially the same. The administrative limits by facility for uranium would remain the same (see Table 4.15-1 for facility administrative limits).

LLNL is currently reducing the plutonium administrative limit for the combined Buildings 332 and 334 from 700 kg to 200 kg, with the inventory (actual inventory quantities are classified) being reduced accordingly. The reduction would be accomplished by shipping inventory to an offsite DOE facility and is targeted for completion during FY 1993.

Projected chemical and waste amounts have been calculated solely for the purposes of defining the proposed action in this EIS/EIR. Actual amounts of chemicals used and wastes generated are expected to be less than projected here because these projections do not take into account waste minimization plans, mitigation measures, permits, and regulatory constraints. It is anticipated that these minimization plans and mitigation measures would reduce the inventory of hazardous and radioactive material and wastes.

Estimated increases in chemical inventories and waste over the next 10 years are based on the assumed 9 percent increase in gross square footage. Thus, it is projected that the chemical inventory would increase by 19,000 gal and 210,000 lb. Radioactive waste is projected to increase by 2000 gal (liquid low-level wastes), 26,000 lb (solid low-level wastes), and 240 cu ft (solid transuranic wastes); hazardous waste by 28,000 gal (liquid wastes) and 51,000 lb (solid wastes); mixed waste by 2100 gal (liquid wastes) and 4600 lb (solid wastes); and medical waste by 230 lb (solid wastes).

In addition to new facilities, the proposed action would result in new operational programs, as well as programs to upgrade and maintain existing facilities (LLNL, 1991b). Table 3-2 provides general information about these proposed programs. They include significant operational changes, enhanced conservation efforts, environmental health improvements, improvements in security and facility-type safety measures, improvements in materials handling, and physical plant improvements.

Operational changes under the proposed action include the following: (1) reduction of the tritium administrative limit to no more than 5 g in Building 331 and no more than 5 g combined in Buildings 298 and 391, which would support tritium research and target development/fabrication (B298), and house the NOVA Upgrade/National Ignition Facility (B391). The total administrative limit for tritium is 10 g for all three buildings. (2) technological upgrades to the plutonium facility in Building 332 to provide new equipment, capabilities, and state-of-the art gloved enclosures to facilitate LLNL's weapons-oriented plutonium research effort; and (3) additional contained firing capabilities of detonating up to 20 kg of high explosives in Building 191, the High Explosives Application Facility, currently limited to 10 kg.

Conservation efforts under the proposed action would focus on retrofitting various buildings for energy conservation. Conservation projects include installation of high-efficiency lighting systems; enhanced heating, ventilation, and air conditioning control systems; cogeneration systems; thermal energy storage; and devices that use alternate fuels.

Proposed projects to protect environmental health at the LLNL Livermore site and the nearby vicinity include the Hazards Control Health and Safety Facility, which would provide laboratory space, health and safety training classrooms, a central health and safety library, and additional support functions for LLNL programs. Retention tank upgrades, repair, and maintenance are proposed as preventive measures against the accidental release of potential contaminants into the environment. Decontamination and restoration of Building 292, former site of the Rotating Target Neutron Source (RTNS) Facility and Building 212, the site of the prototype of RTNS-2 would allow the buildings to be converted to other uses. Rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer system would minimize both infiltration of waters and exfiltration of sewage.

Proposed emission and effluent systems upgrades to the Nuclear Chemistry Facility, Building 151 would include replacing the existing exhaust system with a central scrubbed exhaust manifold and stack with continuous monitoring, and upgrading the existing retention system with a double contained system and leak monitor. Structural upgrades to other LLNL Livermore site stacks are proposed to increase air emissions monitoring capability, thereby improving environmental health.

Among the proposed action's new safety and security measures is a vital upgrade of the existing LLNL Livermore site fire-alarm system with new, low-voltage components. Additional renovation, replacement, and seismic upgrades, including refurbishment of the existing Hazards Control Facility in Building 253, would replace older structures and facilities, thereby improving facility safety. DOE has proposed acquisition of East Avenue between South Vasco and Greenville roads to improve security at the LLNL Livermore site.

Projects that would improve the handling of hazardous materials at the LLNL Livermore site include the Waste Minimization project, which would provide resources for the Engineering Department's waste minimization effort in Buildings 322 and 141. The proposed Mixed Waste Treatment Facility (MWTF) and Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility (DWTF) would replace some, and upgrade other, LLNL facilities that process, treat, and store hazardous, radioactive, and mixed wastes. The Integrated Demonstration Facility, tentatively proposed by LLNL, would be a research and development center for demonstrating best available technologies for treating LLNL mixed waste.

Table 3-2 LLNL Livermore Site Program Projections Upgrades and Operational Modifications Under the Proposed Action

Project Name	Funding Status	Map Loc.a	Project Description
Building 332 and 334 Plutonium Administrative Limits	Proposed	P3	Decrease plutonium administrative limits from 700 kg to 200 kg
Building 331 Tritium Limits	Proposed	M1	Decrease tritium limits from 300 g to 5 gb
NOVA Upgrade/National Ignition Facility Planning & Design	Proposed	Not available	Laser upgrade design/modification to handle tritium target activities
Modification for Energy Management	Proposed	Multiple locations	High-efficiency lighting systems Enhanced HVAC control system Cogeneration system Thermal energy storage Alternate fuel projects Energy conservation retrofits
Building 212 and 292 Decontamination	Proposed	P2	Decontaminate and restore two buildings, former sites of Rotating Target Neutron Source Test Facility
Plutonium Facility B332 Upgrade	Proposed	P3	65 percent of 25,000 sq ft for major improvement, new equipment, and state-of-the-art glove boxes
Upgrade Fire Alarm System	Proposed	Multiple locations	Replace existing system with new low-voltage components
Building Electrical Code Improvement	Proposed	Multiple locations	Upgrade of low-voltage systems on 565 labs, support, and general purpose facilities at LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300
B191 Hazardous Firing Upgrade	Proposed	P5	Additional firing tanks for differing experiments
B131 General and Environmental	Proposed	P6	Electrical and mechanical portion of building upgrade
NW Low Conductivity Water Station	Proposed	P7	11 MW addition to existing 33 MW Northwest Station
B322 Plating Facility Upgrade	Proposedc	P8	Upgrade B322 to a closed system operation.
Nano Scale Materials Facility Upgrade	Proposed	Not available	8000 sq ft refurbish facilities
B321 General and Environmental Upgrade	Proposed	P9	Machining operations upgrade
Replace Deteriorating Offices	Proposed	P10	New office space, replace B213, B319, T2175, T2177
B141 General Upgrade	Proposed	P11	Modernization of B141 with emphasis on printed wiring code facility
Retention Tank Upgrade	Proposed	P12	Modern retention tanks for B241, B281, and B227
B151 Effluent System Upgrade	Proposed	P13	Replace fume hoods and single wall glass system.
B253 Refurbish/Replace	Proposed	P14	Hazards Control Building Major Refurbishment. Refurbish structural/HVAC/electrical/roofing
East Avenue Acquisition	Proposed	Portion of East Ave.	Acquire East Avenue between Vasco Road and Greenville Road
Fusion Target Tritium Limits	Proposed	M2	Increase Building 298 tritium limits to 5 gb
NOVA Upgrade/National Ignition Facility Tritium Limits	Proposed	M3	Increase Building 391 tritium limits to 5 gb
Integrated Demonstration Facility	Proposed	P19	Research and development center for demonstrating best available technologies for treating LLNL mixed wastes

^a For map location, see Appendix A, Figure A-8.
^b No more than 5 g in any one facility; no more than 10 g among Buildings 298, 391, and 331.
^cFor funding status, proposed indicates planned but not yet funded projects.

3.1.2 LLNL Site 300

The proposed LLNL Site 300 projects would add approximately 32,000 sq ft to the existing total of 350,000 sq ft resulting in a net increase in facility space of approximately 9 percent. This increase is from construction of the Contained Firing Facility and the fire station upgrade. Table 3-3 provides general information about this and other proposed building projects. Table 3-3 also includes information on the proposed replacement of Fire Station No. 2 (DOE, 1990). Table 3-4 includes information on program upgrades and modifications. Again, new facilities will be designed pursuant to the Secretary of Energy's 10-point initiative to modernize DOE facilities to meet current, and accommodate future, environmental, safety, and health standards.

Examples of proposed new facilities, upgrades, or operational changes include (LLNL, 1991b):

• The Contained Firing Facility would consist of three related structures for firing of up to 60 kg of energetic high explosives in a safe and environmentally sound manner. The three structures, a firing chamber, support facility, and diagnostic equipment facility would be built onto the existing firing-table site adjacent to Building 801. The firing chamber would confine the detonation of cased high explosives materials used in various laboratory experiments. The chamber would be steel-lined for shrapnel protection and would have a variety of diagnostic and observation port penetrations for various tests. The support facility would provide a staging area for experiment preparation, storage for equipment and materials used, and a personnel area for lockers, toilets, and decontamination showers. The diagnostic equipment facility would have nonbearing, tilt-up reinforced concrete panel walls supported by a rigid steel-frame system. It would contain all of the unique instrumentation and devices needed for monitoring, recording, and performing the required experiments.
• The Explosives Waste Storage Facility Project would consist of the rearrangement of four existing high explosives storage units for the storage of explosive wastes. A new prefabricated metal building, to be located in a previously paved area, would be used for storing explosives-contaminated solid wastes (including packing material, discarded paper, and plastic labware) and ash from thermal treatment processes. Each of the four earth-covered magazines is capable of storing up to 10,000 lb of a single type of explosives or a maximum of 1000 lb of a mixture of several types of explosives (LLNL, 1992).
• A new Explosive Waste Treatment Facility which would replace the high explosive waste open burning facility at Building 829. The present facility would then be closed through a formal RCRA closure procedure. This facility would include an open detonation table and open burn units for treatment of pieces of explosive waste; a propane-fueled burn cage for treatment of clarifier filter bags containing explosives waste, small pieces of explosives, and reactive contaminated trash; and a burn pan with a removable cover for burning bulk pieces and explosive powders.

High explosive wastes to be burned at this new facility are expected to be the same or less than the amounts currently treated in the Building 829 High Explosive Burn Facility. This new facility would burn explosive dry solid wastes consisting of high explosives-contaminated solid materials and packaging, and powders and small pieces of high explosives. The estimated annual quantity to be burned is 4000 lb. Additionally, approximately 1000 lb of high explosive clarifier waste sludge would be burned annually.

• The Cheap Access to Orbit experiment (CATO) would involve developing a two-stage gas gun to propel projectiles into orbit. As a potentially cost effective and practical method of placing metric-ton payloads into earth orbits, the gun would propel projectiles made of lightweight alloys and polymers (aluminum, polymer, and resin) weighing as much as 10 kg at velocities up to 7 km/second using methane and hydrogen as propellants. The CATO gun will fire projectiles horizontally into an earthen berm shielded with concrete. The projectile would be propelled approximately 50 ft within the CATO gun before hitting the berm. Gun detonation would be initiated by an electric spark in the combustion chamber containing a methane air mixture. The experiment would be fired, on average, once a week, for a total of about 50 firings annually. After the 3-year experiment is completed, the CATO system would be dismantled.
• The Flash X-Ray Upgrade II would include the construction of a new Flash X-Ray generator providing increased capability for studying explosive testing. The project would require significant design effort to achieve multiple pulsing, and include both the construction of an accelerator and its housing structure.
• The Fire Station No. 2 replacement project, scheduled for FY 1994, would replace the existing station, which is over 30 years old. The proposed fire station would provide approximately 5500 sq ft of space, composed of three apparatus bays with 14-ft high roll-up doors for an ambulance, pumper, and patrol vehicle, living quarters for five fire fighters, a dayroom, an office, and an equipment decontamination area.

It is estimated that the increase in personnel would be 50 employees. The projected changes in the administrative limits for radionuclides listed in section 4.15 apply to both the LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300. The assumed increases in chemical inventory and waste at LLNL Site 300 are based on the projected 9 percent increase in gross square footage. Thus, it is projected that the chemical inventory would increase by 7600 gal of liquid, 9000 lb solid, and 171,000 cu ft of gas. Radioactive waste is assumed to increase by 27,000 lb (solid wastes); hazardous waste by 3700 gal (liquid wastes) and 3300 lb (solid wastes); mixed waste by 180 lb (solid wastes) and high explosive waste by 405 lb (solid wastes). LLNL Site 300 generates approximately 12 lb medical waste per year; the assumed increase would amount to approximately 1 lb. As with the LLNL Livermore site, the assumed chemical and waste amounts have been calculated solely for the purposes of defining the proposed action in this EIS/EIR. These assumptions do not consider waste minimization plans, mitigation measures, permits, and regulatory constraints.

Table 3-3 LLNL Site 300 Program Projections New Facilities Under the Proposed Action

Project Name	Proposed Gross Sq Ft	Funding Status	Map Loc.a	Principal Use
				Office	Lab/ Research	Misc.
Explosives Waste Treatment Facilityb	Not available	Proposedc	P5		Yes	Yes
Contained Firing Facility (CFF)	26,500	Budgeted	F1		Yes	Yes
Fire Station No. 2 Replacement	5,500	Proposed	P2	Yes		Yes

^a For map location, see Appendix A, Figure A-12.
^bAn open-air high explosives burn and detonation facility.
^c For funding status, proposed indicates planned but not yet funded projects.

Table 3-4 LLNL Site 300 Program Projections Upgrades and Operational Modifications Under the Proposed Action

Project Name	Funding Status	Map Loc.a	Project Description
Cheap Access to Orbit Experimental Tests (CATO)	Proposedb	P3	Develop two-stage gas gun to propel projectiles into orbit.
Flash X-Ray Upgrade II (FXR-11)	Proposed	P1	Construct new flash x-ray generator
Upgrade Retention Tank System	Proposed	Not available	Modernize retention tanks at selected facilities
Explosives Waste Storage Facility	Proposed	P4	Rearrange existing magazines to store explosives wastes
Cooling Tower Modifications	Proposed	Multiple locations	Reduce or eliminate water discharges to surface water courses
LLNL Site 300 Tritium Use	Multiple Locations	P3	Resume tritium use at the firing tables with an administrative limit of 20 mg.

^a For map location, see Appendix A, Figure A-12.
^bFor funding status, proposed indicates planned but not yet funded projects.

3.1.3 SNL, Livermore

SNL, Livermore planned projects consist mainly of two types: construction and operational modifications. The new projects under the proposed action are listed in Table 3-5, and the proposed projects involving upgrades, operational and maintenance projects, and operational modifications are described in Table 3-6 (SNL, 1989). The construction projects are expected to add approximately 50,000 sq ft to the existing 830,000 sq ft, resulting in an increase in developed space of about 6 percent. The new facilities would consist predominantly of light laboratory and office space. As with LLNL, the new facilities would be designed pursuant to the Secretary of Energy's 10-point initiative to modernize DOE facilities to meet current, and accommodate future, environmental, safety, and health standards (DOE, 1989). For example, the replacement of trailers and temporary buildings with permanent laboratories and offices would provide necessary space for research work using state-of-the-art equipment and procedures.

It is assumed that the increase in personnel would be 15 employees. The assumed increases in chemical inventories and waste are based on the projected 6 percent increase in gross square footage. Thus, it is projected that the chemical inventory would increase by 210 gal of liquids, 380 lb of solids, and 11,900 cu ft of compressed gases. Radioactive wastes would increase by 460 gal of liquids and 540 lb of solids; hazardous waste by 240 gal of liquids and 380 lb of solids; mixed waste by 15 lb (liquid scintillation cocktail waste) and 4 lb (solid waste); and medical waste by 7 lb. It is also estimated that there would be no net increase in the overall administrative limits for tritium. These assumed chemical and waste amounts have been calculated solely for the purposes of defining the proposed action in this EIS/EIR. These assumptions are not reduced by the projected increase in gross square footage from nonlaboratory space, nor do they consider waste minimization plans, mitigation measures, permits, and regulatory requirements. Specifically, the Environment, Safety and Health Enhancement Project would decrease waste emission and should result in decreases in both chemical usage and waste generated.

The only projects planned for the site are the:

• Environment, Safety and Health Enhancement Project, which would involve construction of three new environment, safety, and health-related facilities. The first is an Environment, Safety and Health Management Facility of about 35,000 sq ft providing space for environment, safety, and health offices, laboratories, and training facilities. The second is a Waste Processing Facility which would add about 10,000 sq ft for waste processing, packaging, and shipment. It would also provide space for material washdown and decontamination and recyclable material processing. The third, a 5000 sq ft Hazardous Material Storage Facility would consist of several modules to store different types of hazardous materials.
• Another project in the initial planning phase is the Center for Environment Technologies Research. The purpose of the center would be to research, identify, and develop advanced thermomechanical treatment technology to minimize or process waste generated at DOE weapons production facilities. The nature of materials handled and the research to be conducted in this facility may necessitate future NEPA review. Refer to Appendix A for more information on these projects.

In addition, SNL, Livermore management is committed to reducing the tritium limit to 0 g and to decontaminating and decommissioning the Tritium Research Laboratory. A transition to alternative uses would occur in conjunction with this proposed operational modification. The decontamination and decommissioning operations are planned to be performed over a 3-year period, and would be done in accordance with appropriate DOE Orders and federal and state of California laws and guidelines. The tritium inventory is planned to be 0 g in the fall of 1993. Experiments are being relocated to other DOE facilities, subject to establishment of experimental capabilities at those other facilities. SNL, Livermore would still maintain technical expertise in tritium work but would not perform tritium experimentation onsite. The work to be relocated to this facility has not been identified. When it is, the appropriate environmental review and analysis will be undertaken (see Appendix A, section A.3.5.3).

Table 3-5 SNL, Livermore Program Projections New Facilities Under the Proposed Action

Project Name	Proposed Gross Sq Ft	Funding Status	Map Loc.a	Principal Use
				Office	Lab/ Research	Misc.
Environment, Safety & Health Enhancement Project	50,000	Proposedb	P1	Yes	Yes	Yes

^aFor map location, see Appendix A, Figure A-17.
^b For funding status, proposed indicates planned but not yet funded projects.

Table 3-6 SNL, Livermore Program ProjectionsUpgrades and Operational Modifications Under the Proposed Action

Project Name	Funding Status	Map Loc.a	Project Description
Tritium Research Lab Tritium Limits	Funded	M1	Building 968 tritium limits reduced to 0 g
Decommissioning	Pending		Decontaminate and decommission Building 968
East Avenue Acquisition	Proposedb	Portion of East Ave.	Acquire East Avenue between Vasco Road and Greenville Road
Center for Environmental Technologies Research	Proposed	P2	Thermomechanical technology research

^a For map location, see Appendix A, Figure A-17.
^b For funding status, proposed indicates planned but not yet funded projects.

3.2 EIS/EIR ALTERNATIVES

3.2.1 No Action

This alternative is continued operation, including those LLNL and SNL, Livermore projects already authorized and funded through FY 1992 (Table 3-7, Table 3-8, and Table 3-9). Programs and projects would continue at their present (FY 1992) level, but no proposed or tentative projects (as listed in Tables 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6) would be added except those required to maintain the existing infrastructure or those required to comply with statutes and regulations for completion of environmental remediation activities at the site. LLNL environmental restoration activities are being done pursuant to CERCLA agreements. SNL, Livermore environmental restoration activities are being done in accordance with CERCLA, but pursuant to orders of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The no action alternative at both LLNL and SNL, Livermore includes routine activities such as infrastructure and building maintenance, minor modification to buildings, general landscaping, road maintenance, and similar support activities. As in the proposed action, the tritium limit at the Tritium Research Laboratory (Building 968) would be reduced to 0 g and the building decontaminated and decommissioned under the no action alternative.

Employment and funding levels, adjusted for inflation, would remain at FY 1992 levels. No new projects except those funded by the end of FY 1992, those required to maintain the existing infrastructure, and those required to comply with statutes and regulations (e.g., remediation of inactive sites) would be included. A range of physical plant maintenance activities are part of this alternative. These include roof replacements for over 100 buildings, rehabilitation of over 6.5 miles of roads and more than 2.51 million sq ft of parking lots at the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore site, and upgrading low-voltage electrical systems in 565 Laboratory buildings.

The no action alternative could cause schedule modifications or delays, changes in funding priorities, less flexibility in responding to new program initiatives, and other potential program impacts. This could result in only the partial fulfillment of the research and development missions established by Congress and the President.

Table 3-7 LLNL Livermore Site Program Projections Upgrades, Operational, and Maintenance Projects Under the No Action Alternative

Project Name	Funding Status	Map Loc.*	Project Description
Building 332 and 334 Plutonium Limits	Not Applicable	P3	Decrease plutonium administrative limits from 700 g to 200 g
Building 331 Tritium Limits	Not Applicable	M1	Decrease tritium limits from 300 g to 5 g
Electric Power System Replacement and Upgrades	Funded	Multiple locations	Electrical replacements and upgrades to the electrical utility infrastructure
Infrastructure Modernization	Funded	Multiple locations	Low Conductivity Water (LCW) System Rehabilitation New 3×30,000-gal water tanks will replace old 100,000-gal tank Cooling tower system upgrade Construction activity at B325 Domestic Water System Upgrade 8000 linear ft 16-inch water supply line 700,000-gal water storage tanks at SNL, Livermore Upgrade Zone 7 back-up supply Demolish 206,000-gal tank
Sanitary Sewer System Rehabilitation	Funded	Multiple locations	Approximately 27,321 linear ft—Inversion lining Approximately 21,905 linear ft—Replace
Roof Replacement	Proposed	Multiple locations	Roofs over 100 buildings to be replaced
Civil Infrastructure Modernization	Proposed	Multiple locations	13 miles of roadway repair/overlay 2.51 million sq ft of parking lots repair/overlay
Stack Construction and Monitoring Upgrade	Proposed	Multiple locations	Mechanical modifications to combine existing stacks on facilities with multi-emission sources
Office Addition to Building 332	Funded	F1	Addition of 13,000 sq ft of office space and secondary alarm station
Laser Guide Star Experiment	Funded	F2	Research and demonstration of laser technology to overcome atmospheric distortion in use of astronomic telescopes

* For map location, see Appendix A, Figure A-8.

Table 3-8 LLNL Site 300 Program Projections Upgrades, Operational, and Maintenance Projects Under the No Action Alternative

Project Name	Funding Status	Map Loc.*	Project Description
Site 300 Facilities Revitalization— Phase I (SFR-I)	Funded (in Construction)	Multiple locations	B802 High-Speed Optics Facility 3,860 sq ft B802 Addition, Bunker Support Facility 960 sq ft B802, Central Control Post, at Route 3 and 4 "Y" Diagnostic Equipment for Bunkers 801 and 851 Route #3 upgrade and alignment; intersection Route #3 and Linac Road, Do-all Road, "Y" intersection at Route 3 and 4 9,500 ft of 10-inch pipeline from the Thomas Shaft and possible water treatment 211,600-gal Water Tank 11, next to Tank 8 2,400 ft of 10-inch pipeline among GSA, Tank 8, and Tank 11
LLNL Site 300 Tritium Use	Proposed	Multiple Locations	Resume tritium use at the firing tables with an administrative limit of 20 mg.

* For map locations, see Appendix A, Figure A-12.

Table 3-9 SNL, Livermore Program Projections Upgrades, Operational, and Maintenance Projects Under the No Action Alternative

Project Name	Funding Status	Map Loc.*	Project Description
Main Electrical Service and Switchgear	Funded	F1	Replacement system for power supply
Tritium Research Lab Tritium Limits Decommission	Funded Pending	M1	Building 968 tritium limits reduced to 0 g Decontaminate and Decommission Building 968
Infrastructure Modernization	Requested	Multiple locations	Roof Replacement for Buildings 914, 916, 912, 920, 921, 922, 972, 973, 978 Renovation of mechanical equipment Buildings 911, 912, 913, 914, 916 820,000 sq ft paved area resurfacing Site fire water system renovation Site natural gas distribution system repair
Site Seismic Modernization	Requested	Multiple Locations	Site seismic evaluation and modification for over 40 permanent buildings

* For map locations, see Appendix A, Figure A-17.

3.2.2 Modification of Operations

This alternative is to modify LLNL and SNL, Livermore operations, including near-term (within 5 to 10 years) proposed projects, to reduce adverse environmental impacts. Modification of operations is broadly defined as the scaledown of operations and/or the application of alternative technologies and management strategies (formerly two alternatives as described in the Notice of Intent, 55 Fed. Reg. 41048). Selection of this alternative would require study to ensure that the missions of both LLNL and SNL, Livermore would continue to be met.

To identify potential modifications to be discussed, existing operations at LLNL and SNL, Livermore were evaluated for their environmental impact. The criteria for selection were:

• Operations with a potential for, or a history of, greatest worker exposure (see Appendix C).
• Operations with the greatest potential impact to the public, based on accident analyses (see Appendix D).
• Operations historically generating the greatest quantities of transuranic waste, low-level waste, mixed waste, or waste restricted from land disposal (see Appendix B).

Some major facilities meeting the above-described criteria are:

• LLNL Building 321C, housing some of LLNL Materials Fabrication shops, where radioactive materials are machined and formed. Building 321C was selected because of the mixed wastes generated there.
• LLNL Building 511, Crafts Shop, where operations generate hazardous wastes. Building 511 was selected because the wastes generated are restricted from land disposal.
• LLNL Building 322, Plating Shop, where large quantities of various incompatible chemicals are in use. Building 322 was selected because of the potential for impact to the public based on accident analyses (see Appendix D).

Among the operations at these selected facilities, candidates for potential modification of operations are:

• Waste management operations at the two Laboratories might be combined at LLNL's waste management complex. This might be accomplished through regulatory means allowing LLNL and SNL, Livermore to apply for the same EPA identification number or by LLNL modifying its RCRA Part B permit to accept SNL, Livermore wastes. This alternative management strategy could allow possible increased efficiencies which would reduce exposures during handling, treating, and packaging wastes prior to being shipped offsite. Additionally, under this alternative, more efficient methods of waste treatment could be evaluated at a centralized waste management complex.
• Operations in the plating shop, Building 322, might be modified and the building structurally reinforced to prevent the mixing of incompatible chemicals if a severe (i.e., greater than 0.9g) earthquake were to occur.
• Buffer zones to the east of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore might be acquired to reduce fenceline exposures and to preclude the development of residential and/or industrial areas immediately downwind of the two Laboratories.

These examples of possible modifications are illustrative of various options being considered. If any of these examples were selected, more detailed engineering and environmental evaluations would be prepared; this could include study to ensure there would be no impacts to LLNL and SNL, Livermore missions from this alternative. Nothing would preclude the implementation of any of these modifications if the proposed action is adopted.

3.2.3 Shutdown and Decommissioning

This alternative is the phaseout of all research and development operations at LLNL and SNL, Livermore with the eventual shutdown and decommissioning of all facilities.

Shutdown means an orderly phaseout of programmatic research and development efforts. Phased shutdown is estimated to take 5 years. This estimate is based on periods for planning, environmental documentation of the impact of closing facilities, and phaseout of programs and shutdown of facilities. The Laboratories would require a caretaker staff during and after shutdown to maintain the decommissioning, environmental restoration and compliance infrastructure. The caretaker staff would continue operation and maintenance of LLNL and SNL, Livermore support functions including security, utilities, shipping and receiving; environmental, safety, and health protection; and other services.

Decommissioning means the restoration or destruction and disposal of contaminated facilities. Decommissioning and environmental compliance activities would start during shutdown and continue for an estimated 5 years beyond shutdown. Radioactive and other hazardous sources would be removed and transported to other DOE or commercial facilities as appropriate. During this time, individual facilities would be decontaminated as they are vacated. LLNL and SNL, Livermore would be restored so that facilities could be conveyed unrestricted to new owners or operators in a phased transfer, and in accordance with applicable regulatory limits. The subsequent fate of the various programs is not considered here because it is beyond the scope of this EIS/EIR. Should this alternative be selected, the possible transfer of these programs elsewhere would be considered in another NEPA document.

The projects to be eliminated and the facilities to be shut down are those in existence in FY 1992. Those projects and facilities required to comply with statutes and regulations (e.g., remediation of inactive sites) would continue.

This alternative would require a legislative redirection of DOE's mission, a new initiative to significantly restructure and consolidate the national laboratories, or both. It is therefore not likely to be implemented within the timeframe of this EIS. However, it has been included for comparison with other alternatives and to provide the decision maker with an alternative if the environmental impacts from the proposed action or any of the alternatives are determined to be unacceptable. Section 5 provides an overview of the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of closing LLNL and SNL, Livermore. Specific actions that may be proposed to implement this alternative would have to be addressed, as appropriate, in subsequent NEPA or CEQA documents.

3.2.4 Discontinue University Management of LLNL

The alternative to UC's continuing management and operation of LLNL is the "no project" alternative, under which the UC Regents discontinue management and operation of LLNL. If this were to happen, it is assumed that DOE would select another contractor to manage and operate LLNL at the same operational level described in this EIS/EIR proposed action, or at the level of operations selected by DOE as an alternative through the EIS process.

3.3 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED REVIEW

Phaseout/Relocation of the Nuclear Weapons Program

Any decision to phase out and relocate weapons work at LLNL and SNL, Livermore would have to be made in the context of the entire nuclear weapons complex. Relocation of weapons functions is one of the issues DOE is addressing in a Programmatic EIS for Reconfiguration of DOE's Nuclear Weapons Complex (56 Fed. Reg. 5591). That document will address the future of weapons work at LLNL and SNL, Livermore. If the EIS for Reconfiguration results in changes in LLNL or SNL, Livermore operations, those changes would have to be addressed, as appropriate, in subsequent NEPA or CEQA documents. (See the discussion in section 1.1).

Transition from Nuclear Weapons Research to Other Research

The transition from nuclear weapons research to other research would involve phasing out the nuclear weapons program at LLNL and SNL, Livermore. This possibility cannot be examined until decisions have been made following completion of the Programmatic EIS for Reconfiguration of DOE's Nuclear Weapons Complex. For DOE and UC to project the environmental impacts of new or unknown programs without specific knowledge of those programs and their operations is speculative and beyond the scope of the EIS/EIR.

Relocation of Operations Within Existing Site Boundaries

Although relocating operations with the greatest impacts to new locations within the current LLNL or SNL, Livermore site boundaries may reduce environmental impacts and provide some limited environmental benefits, it would also involve new environmental impacts at the new locations. In addition to the potential impacts associated with construction, there would be impacts from the shutdown and cleanup of the old facility. These new impacts would add to continuing impacts from the relocated facility further removed from some but closer to other populations. It is considered, therefore, that the net environmental improvement, if any, would be so insignificant that this alternative is not reasonable when compared to the significant costs and potential for contamination associated with it.

Continued University Management Under a Modified Contract

This alternative considers the effect of UC negotiating a modified contract with DOE that would exclude certain operations or responsibilities, or scale down operations at LLNL. The environmental effects of this alternative would depend upon the specific contract modifications. Because this option is considered to be similar to the modification of operations alternative, the effects are bounded by analysis of the proposed action and its alternatives as previously defined.

3.4 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

The comparison of the impacts associated with the proposed action and alternatives are summarized in Table 3-10 and Table 3-11 for LLNL and SNL, Livermore respectively. These impacts are discussed more extensively in Section 5.

In accordance with CEQA and the UC CEQA Handbook (UC, 1991), four descriptive categories are used in the EIS/EIR to discuss and analyze environmental impacts: less than significant, significant, significant and unavoidable, and beneficial. These categories have been created and assigned to individual impacts only for the purposes of compliance with CEQA requirements, and thus are used here only in CEQA context. Under NEPA, the significance of environmental impacts determines the need for the NEPA document. Once that decision has been made, specific impacts are not categorized according to level of impact in an EIS.

SECTION 3 REFERENCES

DOE, 1989, Secretary of Energy Agreement on 10-Point Initiative, Washington, D.C., June 27, 1989.

LLNL, 1991a, Budgeted and Proposed Future Projects, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

LLNL, 1991b, Institutional Plan FY 1992–1997, UCAR 10076-10, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, December 1991.

LLNL, 1992, Description of Proposed Projects for Explosives Waste Storage Facility and Explosive Waste Treatment Facility, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, January 1992.

SNL, 1989, Institutional Plan, FY 1989–FY 1994, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM and Livermore, CA.

UC, 1991, Procedural Handbook and Model Approach for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act, Long Range Development and Environmental Planning Division, University of California, CA.