Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report for Continued Operation of Lawrence

SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5.1 PROPOSED ACTION

This section discusses the potential environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. The proposed action for the EIS is the continued operation of LLNL and SNL, Livermore including near-term (5 to 10 years) proposed projects. 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 alternatives are no action, modification of operations, shutdown and decommissioning, and discontinued University management of LLNL.

The following discussion follows the order of issues presented in Section 4. Each impact section begins with a brief summary of the existing conditions, followed by a list of the standards of significance relevant to the area being discussed. The use of specific standards of significance is typical of CEQA; however, their use is acceptable in an EIS. They are used in this EIS/EIR in the discussion of all significance decisions to meet CEQA requirements. After listing the standards of significance, each section discusses impacts and mitigation measures as appropriate. These sections also discuss cumulative impacts both locally and regionally when applicable. (See Section 3 and Appendix A for a more detailed discussion of all the projects included in the proposed action and alternatives.)

To provide a conservative estimate of possible impacts of the proposed action, where appropriate, the analyses use estimates of impacts based on a projected percentage increase in square footage for the Laboratories. Many numerical values used in this document are derived directly from this formula.

Cumulative impacts result from impacts of the proposed action in combination with impacts of future development, either in the vicinity (described in Section 10), or within a regional area appropriate to the resource being analyzed. LLNL Livermore site cumulative air impacts, for example, consider the entire air resource region designated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Cumulative impact discussions in this EIS/EIR analyze impacts that result from implementation of the proposed action at LLNL and SNL, Livermore. This combined analysis is a logically appropriate approach because the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore are adjacent to each other, separated only by a road. However, responsibility for the administration and implementation of the proposed action and accompanying mitigation measures remains with DOE and the individual operating contractors: the Sandia Corporation at SNL, Livermore, and the University of California at LLNL.

Consistent with CEQA and the UC CEQA Handbook, four descriptive categories are used to discuss 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 a 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. The following describes the environmental impact categories utilized in this document:

Less than significant. Impacts that are considered to be less than significant result in no substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions.

Significant. Impacts that are considered to be significant constitute a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions. For the purposes of this document, significant impacts are adverse environmental effects that can be mitigated or avoided. For impacts considered to be significant, mitigation actions or measures are employed to modify, lessen, or nullify the adverse environmental effects, to the extent feasible.

Significant and unavoidable. Impacts that are considered to be significant and unavoidable constitute a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that cannot be mitigated or avoided by implementing feasible mitigation measures. Under CEQA, significant and unavoidable impacts require that findings of overriding considerations be made prior to project approval.

Beneficial. Impacts that are considered to be beneficial are ones that result in a positive change to environmental conditions.

Impacts on the following pages appear in bold print. Unless otherwise noted, impacts are considered to be significant, and the accompanying mitigation measures are sufficient to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures are actions that are over and above actions already contained in the proposed action and/or required by state or federal laws and regulations. All mitigation measures are recommended to UC and DOE at the time decision makers consider the proposed action, and become binding only in the event of approval of the proposed action and adoption of the mitigation measures. DOE commits to mitigation in its Record of Decision (see section 1.2) and UC commits when the Regents adopt findings after certifying the Final EIR (see section 1.3).

Impacts and mitigation measures are numbered for consistency and ease of reference, using a system of three numbers separated by decimals (i.e., x.y.z.). The first digit "x" identifies the corresponding section (e.g., Ecology). The second digit "y" is coded to identify the specific location, that is,

1	=	LLNL Livermore site
2	=	LLNL Site 300
3	=	SNL, Livermore
4	=	Cumulative impacts

The third digit "z" provides a sequential numbering of impacts within the section and site. For example, Impact 4.3.2 would be an impact discussed under section 5.1.4, would pertain to SNL, Livermore, and would be the second such impact listed. Each mitigation measure is numbered to correspond to the impact it addresses.

Summary of Proposed Action

LLNL Livermore Site

For this EIS/EIR it is assumed that proposed projects at the LLNL Livermore site would add approximately 530,000 gross sq ft, resulting in a 9 percent increase in developed space. The new facilities would consist mostly of light laboratory and office space. It is estimated that the increase in personnel would be about 2000 workers. Under the proposed action a portion of the tritium operations in Building 331 may be moved to Building 298, the Fusion Target Fabrication Facility, and to Building 391, the Inertial Confinement Fusion Facility. In this event, the three buildings would have a combined administrative limit of 10 g with no more than 5 g in any one building. For these facilities, the administrative limit would therefore be reduced from 300 g in one facility (Building 331) to 10 g total in three facilities (Buildings 298, 331, and 391).

Based on the 9 percent projected increase in gross square footage of developed space, it is assumed that the overall chemical inventory would increase by approximately 19,000 gal and 210,000 lb, and that wastes would increase in the following amounts: radioactive, 2000 gal (low-level liquid wastes), 26,000 lb (low-level solid wastes), and 240 cu ft (transuranic solid wastes); hazardous, 28,000 gal (liquid wastes) and 51,000 lb (solid wastes); mixed, 2100 gal (liquid wastes) and 4600 lb (solid wastes); and medical, 230 lb (solid wastes). These increased inventories and wastes have been calculated solely for the purposes of defining the proposed action and analyzing potential environmental consequences of the proposed action in this EIS/EIR.

LLNL Site 300

Proposed projects at LLNL Site 300 would add approximately 32,000 gross sq ft, resulting in a 9 percent increase in developed space. It is estimated that the increase in personnel would be 50 employees. Based on the 9 percent projected increase in gross square footage of developed space, it is projected that the overall chemical inventory would increase by approximately 7600 gal, 9000 lb, and 171,000 cu ft; and that wastes would increase over the 5- to 10-year growth period in the following amounts: radioactive, 27,000 lb; hazardous, 3700 gal and 3300 lb; high explosive, 405 lb; mixed, 180 lb; and medical, 1 lb. Again, these increases have been calculated solely for the purposes of defining the proposed action and analyzing potential environmental consequences of the proposed action in this EIS/EIR.

SNL, Livermore

Proposed projects at SNL, Livermore would add approximately 50,000 gross sq ft, resulting in a 6 percent increase in developed space. These new facilities would consist predominantly of light laboratory and office space. It is estimated that the increase in personnel would be 15 employees. It is also estimated that there would be no net increase in the overall administrative limits for tritium and uranium. Based on the 6 percent projected increase in gross square footage of developed space, it is projected that the overall chemical inventory would increase by 210 gal, 380 lb, and 11,900 cu ft; and that wastes would increase in the following amounts: radioactive, 460 gal (liquid low-level wastes) and 540 lb (solid low-level wastes); hazardous, 240 gal (liquid wastes) and 380 lb (solid wastes); mixed, 15 lb (liquid wastes: scintillation cocktails) and 4 lb (solid wastes); and medical, 7 lb. These inventories have been calculated solely for the purposes of defining the proposed action and analyzing potential environmental consequences of the proposed action in this EIS/EIR.

The decontamination and decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory would temporarily increase SNL, Livermore low-level and mixed waste generation over the 3 years of the project. However, since this facility generates over 90 percent of the radioactively contaminated wastes at SNL, Livermore, the transition of this laboratory to a non-nuclear facility would substantially reduce future waste quantities. The wastes generated during decontamination are estimated to include 100,000 lb of equipment and scrap materials as low-level radioactive wastes and 310 gal of oils as mixed wastes. The total residual activity of tritium in these wastes is conservatively estimated to be between 5000 and 10,000 Ci (0.5 to 1 g). A more detailed description of this project is presented in Appendix A.

5.1.1 LAND USES AND APPLICABLE PLANS

LLNL Livermore Site

Onsite land uses at the LLNL Livermore site include offices, laboratory buildings, support facilities (e.g., cafeterias, storage areas, maintenance yards, and a fire station), roadways, parking areas, and landscaping. Surrounding land uses include SNL, Livermore, grazing land, industrial parks, and residences. New facility construction and upgrades, totaling approximately 9 percent of the current developed gross square footage, are proposed for the LLNL Livermore site. No land acquisition, other than the possible acquisition of the part of East Avenue between Vasco Road and Greenville Road, is included as part of the proposed action. While the types of land uses at the LLNL Livermore site would not change under the proposed action, some infill and modernization would occur. Existing perimeter open space areas would be retained, with the exception of construction of one new facility in the currently undeveloped western perimeter area.

LLNL Site 300

LLNL Site 300, located on approximately 7000 acres of largely undeveloped land, has two high explosive remote firing areas supported by a chemistry processing area, a weapons test area, a general services area at the site entrance, and maintenance facilities. Most land surrounding LLNL Site 300 is agricultural land used for grazing cattle and sheep. The Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area and two privately owned research and testing facilities are located in the immediate vicinity of LLNL Site 300. The proposed action includes construction of new facilities and upgrading of several existing facilities, roadways, and utilities totaling approximately 9 percent of the current developed gross square footage. No land acquisitions are included as part of the proposed action. The types of land uses at LLNL Site 300 are not proposed to change, and the open space character of the site would be retained.

SNL, Livermore

Onsite land uses at SNL, Livermore include offices, laboratory buildings, support facilities, roadways, parking areas, and landscaping. Surrounding land uses include the LLNL Livermore site, vineyards, grazing land, and residences. New facility construction and upgrades, totaling approximately 6 percent of the current developed gross square footage, are proposed for SNL, Livermore. No land acquisition, other than the possible acquisition of the part of East Avenue between Vasco Road and Greenville Road, is included as part of the proposed action. The types of land uses at SNL, Livermore would not change under the proposed action, although some infill and modernization would occur. Existing, undeveloped buffer areas would be retained in their current open space condition.

Standards of Significance

A project is considered to have a significant adverse land use impact if it:

Conflicts with adopted environmental plans and goals;
Displaces a large number of people;
Disrupts or divides the physical arrangement of an established community;
Conflicts with established recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses;
Converts prime agricultural land to nonagricultural use or impairs agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land;
Conflicts with federal, regional, state, or local land use plans, policies, and controls;
Conflicts with existing or proposed uses at the periphery of the facility or with local land use plans; or
Results in nuisance impacts attributable to incompatible land uses.

Because LLNL and SNL, Livermore are federally owned facilities, local planning agencies have no jurisdiction over these sites.

All identified impacts are considered to be significant adverse impacts, unless otherwise noted, and the proposed mitigation measures following each impact discussion will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Under the proposed action, the primary effect on land uses at the LLNL Livermore site would be from the additional development associated with certain projects included in the proposed action. No alteration in the types of land uses would result (see discussion under Impact 1.1.1). The LLNL Livermore site is exempt from local plans, policies, and zoning regulations. However, it is DOE and UC policy to cooperate with local governmental planning agencies, in this case the City of Livermore and County of Alameda, whenever possible.

Land uses surrounding the LLNL Livermore site include undeveloped open space, industrial, agricultural, and residential (see section 4.2). The existing LLNL Livermore site facilities, with the 500-ft-wide buffer areas to the north and west, are compatible with existing and approved future land uses surrounding the site, and with open space policies regarding open space resources in the vicinity of the site. Because no new types of land uses would be introduced and the buffer and perimeter areas would not substantially change, no change in the site's compatibility with existing and approved future land uses would result from the proposed action.

Impact 1.1.1 The proposed action would result in additional development at the site to be used for the same types of uses as existing facilities. This is a less than significant impact.

Under the proposed action, several new facilities would be constructed, others would be upgraded, and a number of trailers would be relocated, replaced, or removed as the permanent facilities are completed (see Section 3 and Appendix A). Most proposed new facility construction (laboratory and office space) at the LLNL Livermore site would occur in the southwest quadrant. Facility upgrades, such as modernization and building refurbishment, would occur in the southwest and northwest quadrants. While the types of land uses at the LLNL Livermore site would not change under the proposed action, some infill and modernization would occur.

The land use effect would be a relatively small increase in the amount of developed space at the site (assuming a 9 percent increase in square footage). New structures would be used for the same types of uses as existing facilities. Therefore, it would not represent a change in land uses, nor lead to a conflict with existing and approved future land uses adjacent to the site. As discussed in section 4.2, existing onsite land uses are compatible with the existing land use and open space policies of the City of Livermore and County of Alameda.

It is acknowledged that growth of the facilities at the site could have secondary effects due to increased personnel and activity at the site (i.e., additional traffic, noise, vehicular exhaust emissions, demands for community services, increased consumption of natural resources, increased waste generation, etc.). These potential effects are addressed in the applicable parts of Section 5 of this document.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 1.1.2 DOE acquisition of a portion of East Avenue would alter a segment of this road's use from a local government–owned, unrestricted access roadway to a federal government–owned, possibly restricted access roadway. This is a less than significant impact.

Acquisition by DOE of a portion of East Avenue between Vasco and Greenville roads would potentially alter this road's status from a local government–owned roadway to a restricted public access or no public access federal government–owned roadway to improve security for a portion of the LLNL Livermore site. This change in status is less than significant because no users other than the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore take direct access to their property from this roadway. It could lead to an effect on traffic circulation patterns in the vicinity of the site, but these are considered to be less than significant (see section 5.1.11 for discussion of potential traffic circulation effects).

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Under the proposed action, the primary effect on land uses at LLNL Site 300 would be from the development of additional square footage associated with certain projects included in the proposed action. No major alteration in the types of land uses would result (see discussion under Impact 1.2.1).

LLNL Site 300 is exempt from local plans, policies, and zoning regulations. However, it is DOE and UC policy to cooperate with local governmental planning agencies, in this case the counties of San Joaquin and Alameda, whenever possible. Land uses surrounding LLNL Site 300 include other high explosives testing facilities, undeveloped open space, agricultural land, and an off-road vehicle recreation area (see section 4.2). The uses at LLNL Site 300 are compatible with the existing land uses and approved land use designations surrounding the site, and with open space policies regarding open space resources in the vicinity of the site. Because proposed action activities represent a continuation of existing land uses, they are also considered to be compatible with existing and approved future land uses surrounding the site.

Impact 1.2.1 The proposed action would result in additional development at the site to be used for the same types of uses as existing facilities. This is a less than significant impact.

The proposed action includes upgrading of several existing facilities, roadways, and utilities, and construction of new facilities. Section 3 and Appendix A provide more detailed descriptions of the proposed action. Because LLNL Site 300 is located on approximately 7000 acres of largely undeveloped land, and the proposed construction projects and upgrades are dispersed throughout the site, they would not represent a substantial infill of land uses, and the existing character of the site would remain largely unaltered.

The land use effect would be a relatively small increase in development at the site (assuming a 9 percent increase in square footage on the site). These new structures would be used for the same types of uses as existing facilities. Therefore, it would not represent a change in land uses, nor lead to a conflict with existing and approved future land uses adjacent to the site. As discussed in section 4.3, existing land uses are compatible with the existing land use and open space policies of the counties of San Joaquin and Alameda.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 1.3.1 The proposed action would result in additional development at the site to be used for the same types of uses as existing facilities. This is a less than significant impact.

The majority of new facility construction at SNL, Livermore is proposed for laboratory use, with a smaller amount of space dedicated to office and other uses. Facility upgrades, such as roof replacement and infrastructure modernization, are proposed for various areas throughout SNL, Livermore. While the types of land uses at SNL, Livermore would not change under the proposed action, some infill and modernization would occur.

The land use effect would be a relatively small increase in the number of structures at the site (assuming a 6 percent increase in square footage on the site). These new structures would be used for the same types of uses as existing facilities. Therefore, it would not represent a change in land uses, nor lead to a conflict with existing and approved future land uses adjacent to the site. As discussed in section 4.2, the existing land uses are compatible with the existing land use and open space policies of the City of Livermore and County of Alameda.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 1.3.2 DOE acquisition of a portion of East Avenue would alter a segment of this road's use from a local government–owned, unrestricted access roadway to a federal government–owned, possibly restricted access roadway. This would be a less than significant land use effect.

See discussion in Impact 1.1.2 for LLNL Livermore site, which is also applicable to SNL, Livermore.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE

While they are distinct operations managed and operated by different contractors, for purposes of this discussion, the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore are addressed together because of their proximity.

The cumulative impact study area with regard to land uses and planning programs for the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore is defined as that area of Alameda County generally east of Tassajara Road in the City of Dublin and Santa Rita Road in the City of Pleasanton, which encompasses the City of Livermore and eastern unincorporated Alameda County. Section 10 describes relevant planned and proposed projects within this study area.

Large undeveloped open space areas exist in Alameda County in the northern, eastern, and southern portions of the county. A majority of the undeveloped areas are used for agricultural purposes, primarily for grazing. Agricultural lands in the South Livermore Valley General Plan Amendment area support an active wine industry.

A continuing land use trend in Alameda County has been the encroachment of residential, commercial, and industrial uses upon agricultural and open space areas. Development of the planned and proposed projects listed in Section 10 would contribute to the cumulative loss of agricultural land and open space. However, the proposed action would not contribute to the cumulative effect on the loss of agricultural land and open space, because the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore are already committed to research and development land uses and no acquisition of open space or agricultural land is proposed.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

The cumulative impact study area with regard to land uses and planning programs for LLNL Site 300 is defined as that portion of San Joaquin County generally south of I-205 that encompasses the City of Tracy and southwestern unincorporated San Joaquin County. Section 10 describes relevant planned and proposed projects within the study area.

Land uses in the area south of I-580 in unincorporated San Joaquin County include agricultural (primarily grazing), commercial recreation, and high explosives testing facilities (including LLNL Site 300). The city of Tracy, located approximately 8 miles northeast of LLNL Site 300, has a developed core of residential and commercial uses, which becomes less dense along the outer boundaries of the city. Industrial and agricultural land uses surround the perimeter of the city.

In an effort to preserve agricultural land on the valley floor, the City of Tracy Planning Department is encouraging new development in the hillsides (Conant, 1991). Such planned and proposed projects in the southwestern San Joaquin County hillsides include Tracy Hills and Tracy Highlands. These hillside projects would contribute to a cumulative loss of open space near LLNL Site 300. However, the proposed action would not contribute to the cumulative effect on the loss of agricultural land and open space. The majority of the site is designated by the County of San Joaquin for "public and quasi-public" uses, and is not designated by the County for conservation or open space uses.

Tracy Hills is a community being considered for development on approximately 5900 acres immediately northeast of LLNL Site 300. This residential community could be incompatible with LLNL Site 300, depending on the final design and siting of residences. Preliminary plans for the Tracy Hills community show a 0.5-mile open space buffer along the southern boundary of the development (Anthony Guzzardo and Associates, Inc., 1990). This buffer, in addition to the existing 0.25-mile area between LLNL Site 300 facilities and the site's northeastern boundary, is expected to reduce potential land use incompatibilities between LLNL Site 300 and the proposed Tracy Hills community. In accordance with CEQA, at such time as a specific development proposal application is filed, independent environmental documentation for the Tracy Hills community would be prepared by the appropriate lead agency to further address land use compatibility and other environmental impacts, and appropriate mitigation, associated with that project.

Tracy Highlands is a community being considered for development on approximately 1400 acres immediately north of LLNL Site 300. Land use incompatibilities could result between LLNL Site 300 uses and the residential uses proposed within the Tracy Highlands community. In accordance with CEQA, at such time as a specific development proposal is filed, independent environmental documentation for said proposal would be prepared by the appropriate lead agency.

5.1.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

As of September 1991, approximately 11,400 personnel worked at LLNL. Approximately 7026 LLNL workers reside in the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, Tracy, and Manteca (LLNL, 1991b). The rest are distributed relatively uniformly throughout the Bay Area and the Central San Joaquin Valley.

The operation of LLNL generates substantial revenue within the local and regional economy. The total LLNL annual payroll was $432 million in 1990. The total annual expenditure generated by LLNL on goods and services was $466.9 million in 1990. Of that total, $13.4 million was spent on goods and services in the Tri-Valley area.

LLNL Livermore Site

As of 1991, approximately 11,200 personnel worked at the LLNL Livermore site. To develop estimates of employment growth, future employment projections were extrapolated from the historical employment trend. The projections for the proposed action assume that employment could increase by approximately 20 percent over 10 years, increasing the LLNL Livermore site to a total of approximately 13,200 personnel. This figure has been rounded for purposes of this analysis. Therefore, the proposed action may create an additional 2000 employment opportunities in Alameda County, generate additional revenue from increased purchases of goods and services, and create increases in population and subsequent increases in housing demand. The employment projections are conservatively high for purposes of evaluating reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts associated with employment growth; however, due to recent federal budget constraints, actual employment growth is expected to be significantly lower.

LLNL Site 300

As of 1991, approximately 200 personnel worked at LLNL Site 300. Assuming approximately 20 percent increase in employment for LLNL, the proposed action may result in an additional 50 employment opportunities in San Joaquin County. (For purposes of this EIS/EIR analysis, this number has been increased to 50 additional personnel at LLNL Site 300.) The proposed action would generate additional revenue in the area from increased purchases of goods and services and create increases in population and subsequent increases in housing demand. The employment projections are conservatively high for purposes of evaluating reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts associated with employment growth; however, due to recent federal budget constraints, actual employment growth is expected to be somewhat less than the 50 assumed.

SNL, Livermore

Approximately 1500 personnel work onsite at SNL, Livermore. Approximately 1037 SNL, Livermore personnel reside within the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, Tracy, and Manteca (SNL, Livermore, 1991). The rest are distributed relatively uniformly throughout the Bay Area and the Central Valley. The total annual payroll of SNL, Livermore was $51.6 million as of 1990, and annual expenditures totalled $91.8 million for this same period (SNL, Livermore, 1990).

For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that employment at SNL, Livermore could increase by 1 percent over the 10-year project period of the proposed action. The proposed action may result in the creation of an additional 15 employment opportunities in Alameda County, which would generate additional revenue from increased purchases of goods and services and create a small increase in population and a subsequent increase in housing demand.

Standards of Significance

A project is considered to have a significant adverse socioeconomic impact if it:

Induces substantial growth or concentration of population;
Conflicts with adopted environmental plans and goals of a community (such as housing, jobs, and population goals); or
Creates a demand for housing that exceeds the available supply. For the purposes of this analysis, growth beyond that which can be accommodated by the affected counties and cities is considered a significant adverse impact.

IMPACTS—LLNL

Population impacts for the LLNL Livermore site are analyzed in combination with LLNL Site 300 because employee statistics for LLNL are gathered centrally by the LLNL administration and cannot be subdivided by individual site.

In addition, data on the geographic distribution of the residences of potential new hires associated with the proposed action is based on the existing distribution of the work force residences. It is acknowledged that this demographic pattern could change over the proposed action period (e.g., due to lower housing costs in San Joaquin County versus Alameda County, or other economic factors). However, for purposes of this analysis, no change in the distribution is assumed because data is not available to substantiate or quantify such a change in the trend among LLNL or SNL, Livermore personnel.

Impact 2.1.1 Total employment in Alameda and San Joaquin counties would increase with the implementation of the proposed action. This represents a beneficial impact.

Total employment in Alameda County was estimated at 662,800 in 1989 (California Employment Development Department, 1990a). The proposed action is assumed to generate approximately 2000 additional jobs at the LLNL Livermore site. Employment projections for the county estimate that employment opportunities will increase 13.5 percent to 752,278 by the year 2000 (Association of Bay Area Governments, 1989). The additional jobs created by the proposed action at LLNL would represent 2.2 percent of the projected increase in employment within the county. This minimal increase in employment, a 0.3 percent increase over the 1989 employment level, would represent a small economic benefit to the county.

Total employment in San Joaquin County in 1989 was estimated to be 181,000 (California Employment Development Department, 1990b). The proposed action could generate approximately 50 additional jobs at LLNL Site 300 over the 10-year project period. Employment projections for the county estimate a 9.5 percent increase in employment by the year 1993, which represents an additional 17,200 jobs within the county (California Employment Development Department, 1990b). The additional employment opportunities created by the proposed action would represent 0.3 percent of the projected increase in employment within the county. This minimal increase in employment, a 0.03 percent increase over the 1989 employment levels, would represent a small economic benefit to the county.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 2.1.2 An increase in population level and housing demand within Alameda County would occur as a result of the proposed action. This impact is less than significant.

For this analysis, increases in population level and housing demand from the proposed action are projected to be conservatively high. It was assumed that each new job would be filled by someone outside of the project region, that all new employees would migrate to the region, and that each employee would represent a new household. In reality, a percentage of new employees would already reside in the project region, and some households would produce more than one employee. While this method overestimates potential migration of new employees to the project region, it also allows for the "backfilling" of vacancies left as some employees leave their current jobs in the region to work at the Laboratory. The geographic distribution of future LLNL employees is expected to be similar to the current distribution (see Table 5.1.2-1).

Based on the anticipated geographic distribution of personnel residences (see Table 5.1.2-1), the proposed action is estimated to result in a potential in-migration of approximately 1132 workers to Alameda County over the next 10 years (this represents 55 percent of new LLNL personnel). Assuming the current figure of 2.51 persons per household for the county (Association of Bay Area Governments, 1989), the population associated with the additional work force potentially migrating into the county is estimated to be 2841 persons. This represents approximately 0.2 percent of the current population within the county. Population projections for the county anticipate an 8.5 percent increase by the year 2000 (Association of Bay Area Governments, 1989). The incremental population increase associated with the proposed action is within growth projections for the county.

Assuming one worker per household, housing demand generated by the additional work force is estimated at approximately 1132 dwelling units over the 10-year project period. In 1990 the county had 506,449 housing units. The vacancy rate in the county was 2.3 percent, an estimated 11,648 available units (California Department of Finance, 1990a). Potential demand for housing associated with the project's additional personnel assumed to live in Alameda County would represent approximately 9.7 percent of the currently available housing supply within the county.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 2.1.3 An increase in population level and housing demand within the City of Livermore would occur as a result of the proposed action. This would result in a potentially significant and unavoidable impact.

As seen in Table 5.1.2-1, the majority of potential new LLNL personnel (41 percent, or 841) are projected to reside in Livermore, based on the historic pattern of employee residence location. Using the current person-per-household figure of 2.82 for the city (Association of Bay Area Governments, 1989), and assuming one worker per household, the population increase associated with the work force migrating into the city is estimated to be 2371 persons. This represents a 4 percent increase over the city's 1990 population. Growth projections for the city, inclusive of projections for Laboratory growth, anticipate a 26.4 percent increase in the city's population by the year 2000 (Association of Bay Area Governments, 1989).

Assuming each new worker migrating into the city creates a demand for one additional housing unit, a total of 841 units over the 10-year period would be required as a result of the proposed action. In 1990 the city had a housing supply of 20,932 units, and a vacancy rate of 1.0 percent (California Department of Finance, 1990a). This represents approximately 209 available housing units, a minimal amount. The City of Livermore Housing Implementation Program limits residential growth to a maximum of 2.5 percent up to the year 1993. After 1993 growth rates up to 3.5 percent may be implemented (Clemens, 1991). Assuming a growth rate of 3.5 percent for the years 1993 to 2000, a total of 30,046 units would be available by the year 2000. The demand for housing in the city associated with potential new employees would represent 2.8 percent of the projected number of housing units. However, because the estimated demand attributable to work force growth cannot be accommodated by the existing City of Livermore housing market, and because housing growth and personnel growth may not coincide, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable for purposes of this EIS/EIR.

Mitigation Measure: Mitigation measures to reduce impacts on housing availability in the City of Livermore are beyond the authority of DOE or UC.

Impact 2.1.4 An increase in population level and housing demand within the City of Pleasanton would occur as a result of the proposed action. This impact is less than significant.

Approximately 170 (or 8.3 percent) of the potential new workers generated by the proposed action are expected to locate in Pleasanton, based on the anticipated geographic distribution of personnel (see Table 5.1.2-1). Using the current person-per-household figure of 2.91 for the city (Association of Bay Area Governments, 1989), the City of Pleasanton population increase associated with new personnel is estimated to be 495 persons. This represents a 1 percent increase over the 1990 population level of 50,553. This increase would be within growth projections for the city, which project a 43.4 percent population increase by the year 2000 (Association of Bay Area Governments, 1989).

Housing demand generated by new workers as a result of the proposed action is estimated to be approximately 170 housing units over the 10-year period (assuming one household per new employee). The 1990 housing supply within the city was 19,790 units, with a vacancy rate of 2.4 percent. This represents an available supply of approximately 475 units. The demand for housing units associated with potential new workers would represent 36 percent of the current number of available (vacant) units. In addition, the city projects a 12.6 percent increase in the supply of housing by the year 1994 (City of Pleasanton, 1990). (Housing growth projections for the city beyond 1994 currently do not exist.) It is assumed that housing growth to the year 2000 would follow a similar growth rate. Because population growth as a result of the proposed action could be accommodated in the current housing market and housing growth is projected to continue, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 2.1.5 An increase in population level and housing demand in San Joaquin County would occur as a result of the proposed action. This impact is less than significant.

Based on the anticipated geographic distribution of personnel, approximately 334 of the potential new LLNL employees are projected to reside within San Joaquin County (see Table 5.1.2-1). Based on the current person-per-household figure of 2.89 in the county (California Department of Finance, 1990b), the San Joaquin County population associated with the new employees would be approximately 965 persons. This represents 0.2 percent of the total population within the county. County growth projections estimate that the population will increase to 709,887 by the year 2010, a 47.4 percent increase (Williams, 1991). The incremental population increase associated with the proposed action would be accommodated within county growth projections.

Housing demand generated by new employees (assuming one employee per household) in the county is estimated to total 334 units over the 10-year project period. The 1990 housing supply within the county was 168,306 units, with a vacancy rate of 6.22 percent (California Department of Finance, 1990b). The total number of vacant units was 10,469. County projections estimate a 54.5 percent increase in the number of housing units within the county by 2010 (Williams, 1991). Because the demand generated by the project would be minimal relative to the number of available and planned units, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 2.1.6 An increase in population level and housing demand within the City of Tracy would occur as a result of the proposed action. This impact is less than significant.

Based on the anticipated geographic distribution of new personnel, it is estimated that approximately 150 new workers could move to the City of Tracy over the next 10 years. Based on the current person-per-household figure of 2.9 for the city (California Department of Finance, 1990b), the city population associated with the proposed action would be 435 persons. This represents 1.3 percent of the 1990 population within the city, and 1.2 percent of the population within the city's planning area (the area that includes the city and surrounding area within which future growth and annexation to the city are expected).

Projections for the planning area anticipate a 181 percent increase in population by 2010 (Williams, 1991). The high projected population increase is due to current and anticipated job growth in the Livermore-Amador Valley area. These projections anticipate that people will settle in the City of Tracy and surrounding area since commute times from employment centers in the Livermore-Amador Valley and the Bay Area are similar to other Bay Area commute times, and housing prices in southern San Joaquin County are substantially lower (County of San Joaquin, 1987). Population increases associated with the proposed action would be consistent with projections of growth for the planning area.

Housing demand anticipated to occur within the City of Tracy due to project implementation is estimated to be an additional 150 dwelling units. The current housing supply within the city is 11,500 units (California Department of Finance, 1990b). The vacancy rate for the city was 3.44 percent in 1990, which represents 396 available units. The demand generated by the new workers would represent 38 percent of the existing supply of available (vacant) housing. In addition, the number of housing units in the city is projected to increase 47 percent by the year 1995 to a total of 16,905 (Bell, 1991). Thus, the housing demand associated with the proposed action could be accommodated in the current and projected housing supply, and no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 2.1.7 The proposed action would generate additional employment income and expenditures in the region. This is considered a beneficial impact.

The proposed action would provide additional employment opportunities in the region and would increase the payroll at LLNL. Assuming a 20 percent increase in payroll, the additional payroll generated by the proposed action would be $86.4 million. A portion of this increased payroll would enter the local economy as the new workers purchase additional goods and services.

In addition, it is anticipated that the proposed action would result in an increase in expenditures by LLNL. Additional goods and services would be required to support the additional activities, facilities, and workers generated by the proposed action. The additional expenditures of both new personnel and LLNL would generate additional income and employment opportunities within the region as the expenditures filter throughout the economy. The additional income and employment opportunities generated by the proposed action would represent a beneficial economic impact to the region.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

The distribution of SNL, Livermore's work force is similar to that of LLNL. However, SNL, Livermore projects only a 1 percent growth in employment under the proposed action, which would have only minor implications for localities other than Alameda County and the City of Livermore; thus, only impacts upon these localities are analyzed below.

Impact 2.3.1 Total employment in Alameda County would increase with the implementation of the proposed action. This is considered a beneficial impact.

The proposed action is estimated to generate a total of approximately 15 additional jobs at SNL, Livermore. As discussed under Impact 2.1.1 for LLNL, growth projections for the county anticipate a 13.5 percent increase in employment within the county by the year 2000 (Association of Bay Area Governments, 1989). The additional jobs created by the proposed action at SNL, Livermore would represent 0.02 percent of the projected increase in employment within the county. This minimal increase in employment would represent a small beneficial impact to the county.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 2.3.2 An increase in population level and housing demand within Alameda County would occur as a result of the proposed action. This impact is less than significant.

Based on the anticipated geographic distribution of worker residences (see Table 5.1.2-1), the proposed action is estimated to result in a potential in-migration of approximately nine workers to Alameda County upon completion of the proposed action. As discussed under Impact 2.1.2, the incremental population increase associated with the proposed action would be accommodated within growth projections for the county.

Assuming one worker per household, housing demand generated by the new employees is estimated at approximately nine dwelling units. As discussed under Impact 2.1.2, no adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of this growth, because the housing demand can be accommodated within the county's current housing supply, and future housing growth is anticipated.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 2.3.3 An increase in population level and housing demand within the City of Livermore would occur as a result of the proposed action. This impact is less than significant.

As seen in Table 5.1.2-1, approximately seven new SNL, Livermore workers are anticipated to reside in the City of Livermore. Using the current person-per-household figure of 2.82 for the city (Association of Bay Area Governments, 1989), and assuming one worker per household, the population increase associated with the SNL, Livermore work force moving into the city is estimated at 20 persons. This growth is accommodated in population projections for the city, which anticipate a 26.4 percent increase in population by the year 2000.

Assuming each new worker migrating into the city creates a demand for one additional housing unit, a total of seven units would be required. As discussed in the analysis of Impact 2.1.3, the city had an approximate available housing supply of 209 units in 1990. This is a minimal amount of available housing. However, because the projected demand attributable to work force growth under the proposed action can be accommodated by the existing City of Livermore market, this is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 2.3.4 The proposed action would generate additional employment income and expenditures in the region. This is considered a beneficial impact.

The proposed action would provide additional employment within the region, and would increase the payroll at SNL, Livermore. Assuming a 1 percent increase in payroll at SNL, Livermore, the additional payroll generated by the proposed action would be $561,000. A portion of this increased payroll would enter the local economy as the additional workers purchase goods and services.

An increase in the amount of goods and services purchased by SNL, Livermore would be required in order to support the additional activities, facilities, and workers generated by the proposed action. The additional expenditures from both new personnel and SNL, Livermore would generate additional income and employment opportunities throughout the region as the expenditures filter through the economy. The additional income and employment opportunities generated by the proposed action would represent a beneficial economic impact to the region.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Impact 2.4.1 The proposed action would contribute to cumulative housing demand in the region. This is a significant and unavoidable impact.

It is assumed that new personnel associated with the proposed action would reside in the communities listed in Table 5.1.2-1. The number of new hires residing in these communities is anticipated to range from approximately 850 persons in the City of Livermore to approximately 41 in the City of Dublin. In addition, approximately 530 personnel would be distributed throughout other communities in the Bay Area and Central San Joaquin Valley. The proposed action would, therefore, contribute to the cumulative demand for housing in the region associated with new employment opportunities created by planned and approved projects in the region. It is assumed that certain parts of the region could meet the housing demand created by the increase in local job opportunities. However, other parts of the region may have a more limited housing supply or selection (e.g., Livermore) and thus would be subject to a cumulative housing demand that would be considered significant. Due to the high proportion of new hires assumed to require housing in the Livermore area, and the limited supply of available housing there, further evaluation of the cumulative demand for housing in the city is presented below.

Population projections for the City of Livermore anticipate a 26.4 percent increase in population by the year 2000. These projections include the approximately 850-person population increase associated with growth at LLNL and SNL, Livermore. The projected growth in the City of Livermore would result in a total population of 71,700 persons. Based on the current person per household figure of 2.82, the year 2000 projected population would require 25,426 housing units. The projected increase in population could not be accommodated by the current housing stock of 20,932 housing units within the city. Thus, cumulative development may result in a potentially significant adverse impact.

It should be acknowledged that the City of Livermore growth management plan limits housing growth to 2.5 percent per year up to 1993, but the plan can assume a housing growth rate up to 3.5 percent from 1993 to the year 2000. Assuming a housing growth rate of 3.5 percent after 1993, a total of 30,046 housing units would be available by the year 2000. This total would be sufficient to address the projected cumulative demand. However, the timing of additional housing construction and the cumulative projects within the city cannot be guaranteed to coincide.

Mitigation Measure: Mitigation measures to reduce impacts on housing availability in the region are beyond the authority of DOE or UC.

Table 5.1.2-1 Anticipated Geographic Distribution of LLNL and SNL, Livermore Employees as a Result of the Proposed Action

City	LLNL (Includes LLNL Site 300)		SNL, Livermore
City	Number of Employees Residing in City^a	Percent of Total^c	Number of Employees Residing in City^b	Percent of Total^c
Livermore	841	41.0	7.0	48.0
Pleasanton	170	8.3	1.4	9.5
Tracy	150	7.3	1.0	6.2
Manteca	103	5.0	0.8	5.5
Danville	58	2.8	0.4	2.4
Modesto	58	2.8	0.3	1.8
Stockton	49	2.4	0.4	2.5
San Ramon	47	2.3	0.4	2.5
Dublin	41	2.0	0.5	3.1
Other	533	26.0^d	2.7	18.6^d
Total:	2,050		15

^a February 20, 1990.
^b distribution as of March 27, 1991.
^c may not total 100 because figures are rounded off.
^d percent of this category would reside throughout Alameda County and throughou San Joaquin County.

Source: LLNL, 1991b; SNL, Livermore, 1991.

5.1.3 COMMUNITY SERVICES

The following section evaluates the effect of the proposed action on the provision of adequate fire, police, school, and nonhazardous solid waste facilities and services to the Laboratory sites. To evaluate the effects of the proposed action on the provision of community services, onsite service departments and their offsite counterparts were contacted to determine existing levels of interaction and service needs. Onsite departments and potentially affected offsite agencies were also surveyed to determine how the proposed action would affect their operations. Estimates of the increased levels of service needed with the proposed action were made and evaluated.

Personnel statistics for employees at the LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 are combined; thus, some of the projections and analyses in this section discuss impacts of employee growth at the LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 combined.

LLNL Livermore Site

Fire Protection and Emergency Services

The LLNL Livermore site has its own onsite fire protection services. Currently the LLNL Fire Department participates in an automatic aid agreement with the City of Livermore Fire Department and mutual aid agreements with the Alameda County Fire Patrol and State of California Department of Forestry to serve the LLNL Livermore site. As discussed below, the proposed action could result in a need for increased fire protection services onsite. However, it is not anticipated that there would be a significant increase in interaction with offsite agencies.

Police Protection and Security Services

The LLNL Livermore site provides onsite security services and participates in emergency response agreements with the City of Livermore Police Department and Alameda County Sheriff's Department for additional police protection services at the LLNL Livermore site. As discussed further below, the proposed action could result in a need for increased security personnel and/or equipment onsite.

School Services

Approximately 41 percent of the current LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 personnel reside in the City of Livermore. Approximately 1700 students who have one or more parents employed at LLNL are currently enrolled in the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. The proposed action could impact school services provided by the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District.

Solid Waste Disposal

Projections for nonhazardous solid waste generation are based on the estimated personnel increase associated with the proposed action. This method of analysis was used because existing data on the volume of nonhazardous solid waste generated by LLNL and SNL, Livermore are aggregate figures that do not distinguish waste generated by building type or by program. Thus, the most accurate measure of the increase in nonhazardous solid waste generation is assumed to be more closely associated with the increase in personnel generated by the proposed action.

The LLNL Livermore site currently generates approximately 24,000 cu yd of nonhazardous solid waste per year, which is disposed of at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. Assuming increases in nonhazardous solid waste are related to the assumed increases in site employment, it is estimated that the proposed action would result in an increase of approximately 4400 cu yd of nonhazardous solid waste per year to be disposed of at the landfill.

LLNL Site 300

Fire Protection and Emergency Services

LLNL Site 300 has its own onsite fire protection services. Currently the LLNL Fire Department participates in mutual aid agreements with the City of Tracy Fire Department, Tracy Rural Fire Protection District, and State of California Department of Forestry to serve LLNL Site 300. The proposed action could result in a need for a small increase in fire protection services onsite. However, it is not anticipated that there would be a significant increase in interaction with offsite agencies.

Police Protection and Security Services

LLNL Site 300 provides onsite security services and participates in a emergency response agreement with the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Department for additional police protection services at LLNL Site 300. As discussed below, it is anticipated that the proposed action could result in a need for increased security services onsite. However, interaction with offsite agencies is not anticipated to increase significantly.

School Services

The existing setting and impact analysis for school services is combined for the LLNL Livermore Site and LLNL Site 300. See the discussion of school services under the LLNL Livermore site heading above.

Solid Waste Disposal

LLNL Site 300 currently disposes of approximately 2200 cu yd of solid waste per year at the Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill. It is anticipated that the proposed action would result in an increase of approximately 550 cu yd of solid waste per year disposed of at the Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill.

SNL, Livermore

Fire Protection and Emergency Services

Primary fire protection and emergency services for SNL, Livermore are provided by the LLNL Fire Department through a Memorandum of Understanding. The proposed action would not result in a change in this relationship and would not have a significant impact on the ability of the LLNL Fire Department to provide adequate service to SNL, Livermore.

Police Protection and Security Service

SNL, Livermore provides onsite security services and maintains emergency response agreements with the City of Livermore Police Department and Alameda County Sheriff's Department for additional police protection services. As discussed further below, it is anticipated that the proposed action would not result in a significant change to onsite security services or mutual aid agreements with offsite agencies.

School Services

Approximately 48 percent of the current SNL, Livermore employees reside in the City of Livermore. Approximately 205 students who have one or more parents employed at SNL, Livermore are currently enrolled in the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. The proposed action would result in an increase of approximately 2 students over a 10-year period within the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District.

Solid Waste Disposal

SNL, Livermore currently disposes of approximately 3600 cu yd of solid waste per year at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. By projecting solid waste generation as a factor of site employment, it is anticipated that the proposed action would result in an increase of 36 cu yd per year of solid waste disposed of at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill from SNL, Livermore.

Standards of Significance

For purposes of this EIS/EIR, the proposed action would be considered to have a significant impact on community services if:

The service provider anticipates great difficulty in providing increased service, or
The required service expansion results in major adverse secondary effects such as a substantial use of a limited resource.

The project is considered to have a significant adverse impact on school services if it:

Requires expansion or realignment of the existing school system, or
Results in an increase in local enrollment contributing to cumulative increases beyond the capacity of the affected schools.

The project is considered to have a significant adverse impact on nonhazardous solid waste disposal services if it:

Increases generation of nonhazardous solid waste beyond the capacity to accommodate the project or cumulative demand at affected disposal sites, or
Violates published federal, state, or local standards relating to solid waste.

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 3.1.1 The proposed action could result in a need for increased onsite fire protection personnel, equipment, and/or facilities. This is a less than significant impact.

All new projects proposed for the LLNL Livermore site would be within existing Laboratory boundaries in areas already receiving fire protection and emergency services. Employment at the LLNL Livermore site could increase up to approximately 20 percent, and there would be a projected 9 percent overall increase in building square footage onsite over the next 10 years. However, as described in Section 3 and Appendix A, the proposed action includes several fire protection infrastructure improvements, which include replacement of a 206,000-gal water tank with a 700,000-gal water storage tank (the tank is to be built on the SNL, Livermore site and will serve both SNL, Livermore and the LLNL Livermore site) and two fire-rated pumps and upgrades to the existing building fire alarm system. The adequacy of existing services would continue to be evaluated by the LLNL Fire Department on an annual basis by reviewing current operations against National Fire Protection Standards. It is anticipated that as LLNL Livermore site needs increase, personnel, equipment, and facilities would be increased or upgraded, as necessary. Therefore, the proposed action would result in a less than significant impact on onsite fire protection and emergency services.

Mitigation Measure 3.1.1: The LLNL Fire Department will continue to review current operations at the LLNL Livermore site against National Fire Protection standards on an annual basis. If additional needs are identified, personnel, equipment, and facilities would be increased or upgraded as necessary.

Impact 3.1.2 Implementation of the proposed action would potentially result in an increased demand for fire protection services within the mutual aid network. This is a less than significant impact.

For purposes of evaluating impacts of the proposed action, square footage at the LLNL Livermore site is assumed to increase 9 percent. Under their automatic aid agreement, the City of Livermore Fire Department responds to an average of 10 calls a year at the LLNL Livermore site. By projecting the possible increased impact upon the City of Livermore Fire Department as a factor of growth under the proposed action, an increase of one call annually can be conservatively estimated. An average of 10 calls per year at the LLNL Livermore site, for the City of Livermore Fire Department, currently does not have a significant impact on that agency's ability to provide adequate fire protection and mutual and automatic aid service (Brown, 1991). Because the proposed action would not substantially increase the number of calls, and the City of Livermore Fire Department indicates the ability to provide adequate fire protection service, impacts on the City of Livermore Fire Department would be less than significant.

The Alameda County Fire Patrol has not responded to any LLNL Fire Department calls in the past 3 years. As discussed above, implementation of the proposed action is not anticipated to substantially increase the number of calls for assistance. Therefore, the proposed action would result in a less than significant impact on the Alameda County Fire Patrol's ability to provide adequate fire protection within its service area or to carry out its mutual aid responsibilities with other agencies.

Through mutual aid, the California Department of Forestry responds to an average of two LLNL calls a year, which is less than 1 percent of the agency's total calls. The frequency of mutual aid responses is not expected to increase substantially because of the minimal increase in building square footage associated with the proposed action and the similarity between existing onsite uses and those included as part of the proposed action. Due to the infrequency of interaction between the California Department of Forestry and the LLNL fire stations, the proposed action would result in a less than significant impact on the California Department of Forestry's ability to provide an adequate level of fire protection and mutual aid service.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 3.1.3 Implementation of the proposed action would potentially result in a need for increased security personnel and/or equipment onsite. This is a less than significant impact.

All new projects proposed for the LLNL Livermore site would be located within the area already receiving onsite security services and offsite police protection. Employment at the LLNL Livermore site is assumed to increase up to approximately 20 percent, and an overall 9 percent increase in building gross square footage onsite over the next 10 years is also assumed. The adequacy of services provided is based on compliance with DOE Orders 5632.7, 5632.5, and 5632.2A of the Safeguards and Security Manual. The Safeguards and Security Department is subject to several programs designed to evaluate compliance with these DOE Orders. These programs include ongoing self-assessments required by DOE; surveys conducted by UC and DOE auditors, including an annual DOE San Francisco Site Safeguards and Security Survey; periodic inspections by the Office of Security Evaluations (OSE) from DOE Headquarters; and a Laboratory Directors Office Oversight Review through the Assurance Review Office (ARO). Based on these evaluation programs, actions would be taken to ensure that adequate service is being provided through compliance with applicable DOE Orders. Therefore, the proposed action would have a less than significant impact on onsite security services.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 3.1.4 Implementation of the proposed action at the LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 would increase the demand for school services in the region. This is a potentially significant and unavoidable impact.

It is assumed that new personnel associated with the proposed action would reside in the communities listed in Table 5.1.2-1. The number of LLNL new hires residing in these communities is estimated to range from 840 in the City of Livermore to approximately 41 in the City of Dublin. In addition, approximately 530 personnel would be distributed throughout the Bay Area and Central San Joaquin Valley in other communities. Thus, a secondary effect of the proposed action would be an increase in student enrollment in those school districts where LLNL employees reside. It is assumed that some of these school districts could accommodate the increase in student enrollment generated by the proposed action. However, other school districts in the region may have more limited enrollment capacity and thus would be subject to an enrollment demand that would be considered significant; for example, the San Ramon Unified School District has identified an existing overcrowding problem at some grade levels (Huston, 1992).

Due to the high proportion of new hires assumed to reside in the Livermore area, further evaluation of the demand for school services focuses on the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District.

The Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District encompasses approximately 240 sq miles of service area, including the City of Livermore, portions of unincorporated Alameda County, and a small portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County.

DOE participates in the Impact Aid Program, a federal program that provides fees in lieu of property taxes to school districts impacted by federal programs. The Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District receives money from the federal government through this program for pupils with at least one parent employed at LLNL or SNL, Livermore (Sonanberg, 1991). The amount of impact aid fees varies from year to year depending on the amount of money budgeted by the federal government and the number of school districts eligible for such aid (Sonanberg, 1991). The impact aid fees assist the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District in providing adequate school services. However, continuation of this program alone would not be sufficient to fully address the impact of the proposed action on school services in the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District.

It is assumed that the number of personnel at the LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 combined could increase from approximately 11,400 to approximately 13,450 persons by the year 2002 under the proposed action. Based on the approximately 4600 LLNL personnel who reside in the City of Livermore and a current enrollment of approximately 1700 students within the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District who have one or more parents employed at LLNL (Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District, 1991a), a student-generation factor of 0.37 students per worker is assumed. The total number of students (K–12) currently associated with LLNL personnel is estimated to be approximately 4200 in all affected school districts. Based on the generation rate of 0.37 students per worker, the proposed action could result in a total student population of approximately 5000 students, an increase of approximately 800 students, by the year 2002. Approximately 41 percent of the new personnel generated under the proposed action are expected to reside in Livermore. This could, therefore, result in approximately 2000 students, an increase of approximately 300 students, associated with LLNL personnel within the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District by the year 2002. The remaining 500 students would be expected to enroll in school districts in other parts of the region where they reside.

Additional students generated from increased employment at LLNL are expected to be added to the school system incrementally over the next 10 years. For purposes of analysis in this EIS/EIR, it is assumed that the school district would receive no augmentation of district funding or approval for new facilities over the next 10 years. The Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District is currently experiencing problems with capacity at some schools. The Christensen School is currently undergoing expansion. The Leo R. Croce School is currently open only to kindergarten and would not have capacity to accommodate other elementary grades until subsequent years. Livermore High School, Granada High School, and Junction Avenue Middle School are currently undergoing rehabilitation. Additionally, several schools, including Rancho Las Positas, Jackson, and Junction Avenue, are currently at or close to capacity (Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District, 1991b). Therefore, because of the district's current facility needs, the addition of 300 students to the existing facilities would result in a potentially adverse impact on the district's ability to provide an adequate level of service within its jurisdiction.

Mitigation Measure 3.1.4: Impacts to area schools (beyond DOE's participation in the federal goverment's Impact Aid Program) cannot be mitigated by DOE or UC.

Impact 3.1.5 The proposed action would result in an increased demand for nonhazardous solid waste disposal services at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. This is a less than significant impact.

Based on an existing work force level of approximately 11,200 persons and a solid waste generation rate of approximately 24,000 cu yd per year, the LLNL Livermore site generates approximately 2.2 cu yd of solid waste per worker per year, which is disposed of at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. The assumed increase in the work force of 2000 personnel for the proposed action could result in an increase of approximately 4400 cu yd of solid waste per year taken to the landfill. This increase would occur gradually over an approximate 10-year period and ignores source reduction and recycling strategies that are currently in place.

The Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill has a remaining capacity of 23.6 million cu yd as of May 1990. The lifespan of the landfill under current conditions is 17 years (Lydick, 1991). Additional capacity is available, although it is not yet fully permitted (Edminster, 1991).

Discussions with the Alameda County Waste Management Authority indicate that while LLNL and SNL, Livermore are major generators of solid waste within the county, the additional 4400 cu yd of solid waste generated at LLNL by the proposed action would not be significant and could be accommodated by the existing landfill (Edminster, 1991). Therefore, due to the remaining lifespan of the landfills within the county, impacts to solid waste disposal within the county are anticipated to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 3.2.1 The proposed action would potentially result in a need for increased fire protection personnel, equipment, and/or facilities onsite. This is a less than significant impact.

All new projects at LLNL Site 300 would be within existing boundaries in areas already receiving fire protection and emergency services. Personnel at LLNL Site 300 could increase by up to approximately 20 percent, and a projected 9 percent overall increase in building gross square footage may occur. However, the proposed action includes the replacement of Fire Station No. 2 at LLNL Site 300, a significant fire safety measure. The adequacy of existing services would continue to be evaluated by the LLNL Fire Department on an annual basis by reviewing current operations against National Fire Protection Standards. Therefore, the proposed action would result in a less than significant impact on onsite fire protection and emergency services.

Mitigation Measure 3.2.1: The LLNL Fire Department will continue to review current operations at LLNL Site 300 against National Fire Protection Standards on an annual basis. If additional needs are identified, personnel, equipment, and facilities would be increased or upgraded as necessary.

Impact 3.2.2 The proposed action would potentially result in an increased demand for offsite fire protection services within the mutual aid network. This is a less than significant impact.

In the past 3 years, the LLNL Site 300 fire station and the City of Tracy Fire Department have not responded to any calls in each other's jurisdictions under their mutual aid agreement. The number of mutual aid responses is not expected to increase significantly for either agency under the proposed action, which assumes a 9 percent increase in building gross square footage at LLNL Site 300; therefore, the proposed action would have a less than significant impact on the City of Tracy Fire Department's ability to provide adequate fire protection services or mutual aid services.

Through mutual aid, the Tracy Rural County Fire Protection District currently responds to an average of two calls a year at LLNL Site 300. The fire station at LLNL Site 300 has never received a request for assistance from the Tracy Rural County Fire Protection District. It is anticipated that the number of responses for each agency would not significantly increase under the proposed action; therefore, the proposed action would result in a less than significant impact on the Tracy Rural County Fire Protection District's ability to provide adequate fire protection within its service area or to fulfill its mutual aid responsibilities with other agencies.

Also, as discussed above, LLNL Site 300 participates in a mutual aid network with the California Department of Forestry. No significant impact is projected on the California Department of Forestry's ability to provide an adequate level of fire protection and mutual aid service.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 3.2.3 The proposed action would result in an increased demand for nonhazardous solid waste disposal services at the Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill. This is a significant and unavoidable impact.

LLNL Site 300 currently disposes of approximately 2200 cu yd of solid waste per year at the Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill in San Joaquin County. A generation rate of approximately 11 cu yd per employee per year can be assumed based on the current amount of solid waste generated and disposed each year by the existing 200 persons at the site. Therefore, based on a projected increase of 50 persons in the next 10 years, the proposed action would result in an increase of approximately 550 cu yd per year of solid waste to be disposed of at the Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill, or another landfill if necessary.

The Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill is scheduled to close in January 1995. The San Joaquin County Public Works Department is currently evaluating long-term alternatives for solid waste disposal in the county (Karam, 1991). These alternatives include expansion of the existing landfill, siting of a new landfill, and construction of a transfer station for disposal at another landfill.

The projected annual total volume of solid waste generated at LLNL Site 300 under the proposed action would be 2750 cu yd. The projected increase in solid waste generation of 550 cu yd would occur gradually over a 10-year period and ignores source reduction and recycling strategies.

Because no long-term landfill alternatives have been identified to receive solid waste during the projected period of the proposed action, this estimated increase is a significant and unavoidable impact.

Mitigation Measure 3.2.3: LLNL will continue to implement solid waste reduction and recycling strategies at LLNL Site 300.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 3.3.1 The proposed action would potentially increase the demand for fire protection and emergency services at SNL, Livermore. This is a less than significant impact.

Primary fire protection and emergency services for SNL, Livermore are provided by the LLNL Fire Department. The upgrading and addition of facilities planned under the proposed action are within the developed area of SNL, Livermore, which already receives fire protection and emergency services. It is assumed that there could be a 6 percent growth of developed space and a 1 percent increase in employment at SNL, Livermore over the next 10 years. Because of the location of new facilities within an area that already receives fire protection and the minimal increase in employment, impacts on the LLNL Fire Department's ability to provide service to SNL, Livermore anticipated from the proposed action would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 3.3.2 The proposed action would potentially increase the demand for security services to provide adequate protection at SNL, Livermore. This is a less than significant impact.

Proposed facilities for SNL, Livermore are within the developed area of the Laboratory that already receives police protection and security services. Assuming a 1 percent increase in employment and a 6 percent growth in developed space at SNL, Livermore over the next 10 years, it is anticipated that the proposed action would result in a less than significant impact on the ability of onsite security services to provide adequate protection. Any necessary increase in the Protective Force staff or facilities would be evaluated in accordance with DOE Orders in the Safeguards and Security Manual as discussed under Impact 3.1.3, and personnel and equipment would be added as appropriate.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 3.3.3 The proposed action would result in additional demand for school services in the region. This is a less than significant impact.

The existing work force of 1500 persons at SNL, Livermore is anticipated to increase no more than 1 percent over the next 10-year period under the proposed action. Approximately 48 percent of the current SNL, Livermore work force resides in the City of Livermore. A student generation rate of 0.28 students per worker is assumed, based on the approximately 720 SNL, Livermore personnel who reside in the City of Livermore and an existing Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District enrollment of 205 students of SNL, Livermore personnel (Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District, 1991a). Therefore, the proposed action could result in a total generation of approximately four additional students over a 10-year period. Based on the number of current SNL, Livermore personnel residing in the City of Livermore, approximately 48 percent of the new workers who would be generated as a result of the proposed action are expected to reside in Livermore. This would result in two of the four ?additional students of SNL, Livermore personnel enrolled within the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. It is assumed the other two students would attend school elsewhere in the region. This minimal increase would result in a less than significant impact on the ability of the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District or other school districts to provide adequate school services.

Mitigation Measure 3.3.3: DOE will continue to participate in the federal government's Impact Aid Program, which contributes funds to the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District to compensate for impacts to the district resulting from the provision of school services to pupils with at least one parent employed on federal lands.

Impact 3.3.4 The proposed action would result in an increase in demand for nonhazardous solid waste disposal services at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. This is a less than significant impact.

SNL, Livermore currently disposes of approximately 3600 cu yd of solid waste per year at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. This existing solid waste generation and existing employment of 1500 results in a generation factor of approximately 2.4 cu yd per worker per year. Employment projections associated with the proposed action are assumed to be no more than 1 percent over the next 10 years, which would result in an increase of approximately 36 cu yd per year of solid waste disposed of at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill.

The discussion under the impact to solid waste disposal at the LLNL Livermore site is also applicable to SNL, Livermore. Due to the lifespan of the landfills within Alameda County, impacts to solid waste disposal within the county are anticipated to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative development associated with the planned and approved projects in the area would contribute to the cumulative demand for fire and police services in the jurisdictions in which these developments occur. However, since fire and security services at LLNL and SNL, Livermore are independent departments that do not rely on offsite community agencies to provide primary responses to fire and police emergency calls, additional demand for these services onsite associated with the proposed action are not considered to add to the cumulative demand for offsite fire and police services.

Impact 3.4.1 Cumulative development would increase demand for school services in the region. This is a significant and unavoidable impact.

The proposed action would contribute to the cumulative demand for school services in the region. Due to the high proportion of new hires assumed to reside in the Livermore area, a further evaluation of the demand for school services in the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District is presented below.

For purposes of this EIS/EIR, it is assumed that the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District would receive no augmentation of district funding or approval for new facilities over the next 10 years. As discussed under Impact 3.1.4, the district is currently experiencing overcapacity at some schools. Additionally, the district anticipates an increase of approximately 1200 students through the 1995–1996 school year (Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District, 1991b). Therefore, student generation from cumulative development within the district's jurisdiction could not be accommodated by existing school facilities. The proposed action would contribute approximately 300 students to the cumulative student generation and would therefore contribute to a significant and unavoidable impact on the district's ability to provide adequate school services within its jurisdiction.

Mitigation Measure: None available to DOE and UC.

Impact 3.4.2 Cumulative development would increase the demand for nonhazardous solid waste disposal services at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill in Alameda County. This is a less than significant impact.

The proposed action would contribute to the cumulative demand for solid waste disposal service associated with planned and approved projects in the area. Both the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore send solid waste to the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. Alameda County authorities project the existing capacity of this landfill at 17 years, well beyond the projected time period for the proposed action.

The County of Alameda is planning to expand the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill to increase its lifespan by 12 years (Lydick, 1991). The County of Alameda also has plans to site a new landfill in Eastern Alameda County (Martinson, 1991). A study is currently underway to identify and evaluate alternative sites in that area (Edminster, 1991).

The environmental review process for the proposed expansion of the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill and another landfill within the county is scheduled to begin shortly. The county plans to have a fully permitted landfill capacity of 50 years which includes a new landfill in the county and the planned expansion of the two landfills (Edminster, 1991). With existing, planned, and proposed landfill capacity in Alameda County, this is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 3.4.3 Cumulative development in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300 would increase the demand for nonhazardous solid waste disposal services at the Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill. This is a potentially significant and unavoidable impact.

The proposed action would contribute to the cumulative demand for solid waste disposal service associated with planned and approved projects in the area. The Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill is scheduled to close in January 1995. The San Joaquin County Public Works Department is currently evaluating long-term alternatives for solid waste disposal in the county. These alternatives include expansion of the existing landfill, siting of a new landfill, and construction of a transfer station for disposal at another landfill.

The proposed action would contribute an additional 550 cu yd to the cumulative waste disposed of at the Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill, which currently cannot accept waste after 1995. Because no long-term landfill capacity has been identified, this cumulative contribution of solid waste would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact.

Mitigation Measure: Impacts to solid waste disposal services cannot be fully mitigated by DOE or UC.

5.1.4 PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section presents an evaluation of the potential impacts to prehistoric and historic cultural resources resulting from the proposed action. A delineation of the steps required to fully evaluate cultural resources in compliance with National Historic Preservation Act requirements is also provided. LLNL and SNL, Livermore's contribution to cumulative impacts to prehistoric and historic resources within the defined cumulative impact study areas is also discussed.

LLNL Livermore Site

The Area of Potential Effect for evaluation of prehistoric and historic cultural resources at the LLNL Livermore site is defined as the entire site. As discussed in Appendix H, no prehistoric resources have been identified at the LLNL Livermore site.

An evaluation of the historical importance of the Laboratory has recently been conducted (William Self Associates, 1992). If portions of the LLNL Livermore site are ultimately determined, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office, to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, implementation of the proposed action could affect important historic resources.

LLNL Site 300

The Area of Potential Effect for evaluation of prehistoric and historic resources at LLNL Site 300 is shown in Figure 5.1.4-1 and includes several discrete areas across the site. Previous surveys at LLNL Site 300 have identified the presence of both prehistoric and historic resources on the site. Activities under the proposed action could affect these resources.

SNL, Livermore

The Area of Potential Effect at SNL, Livermore is defined as the entire site. SNL, Livermore has been the subject of a thorough cultural resources overview and inventory (Busby and Garaventa, 1990) and cultural resources assessment (Busby, Garaventa, and Harmon, 1990). These surveys have determined that no National Register–listed or –eligible properties are located at SNL, Livermore (State Historic Preservation Office, 1990). Activities associated with the proposed action would not affect any prehistoric or historic cultural resources at this facility.

Standards of Significance

According to NEPA, prehistoric or historic impacts are significant if substantial disturbance or disruption occurs to a resource that is listed on, eligible for, or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. According to CEQA, activities that disrupt or adversely affect "important" prehistoric or historic archaeological (cultural) sites are considered significant adverse impacts. An "important" archaeological resource is defined as one that:

Is associated with an event or person of either recognized significance in California or American history or recognized archaeological importance in prehistory;
Can provide information that is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or archaeological research questions;
Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind;
Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or
Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only by the use of archeological methods.

For purposes of this EIS/EIR, potential disturbances of "important" archaeological resources, or of historic resources that are listed on any national, state, or local historical registers, are considered to be significant adverse impacts.

For both prehistoric and historic resources the impact assessment methodology is similar. The resources within the Area of Potential Effect, defined as part of the historic property identification phase requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act , were identified through literature search and/or field reconnaissance. (See Appendix H for a more detailed description of the Section 106 process.) Resources outside that area are determined not to be affected by the proposed action. Resources within the Area of Potential Effect will be evaluated for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office) or other designation by state (such as a State Historic Landmark) or local government as an important resource.

If a resource is determined to be within the Area of Potential Effect and is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or is otherwise designated an important resource, it will be evaluated for potential adverse effects. The evaluation of adverse effects in this EIS/EIR does not constitute the formal Determination of Effect element of the Section 106 process. It does, however, provide an overview analysis of the potential for disturbance or disruption of cultural resources under the proposed action. The Section 106 process will be completed prior to approval of federal funding for the individual projects included in the proposed action.

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 4.1.1 Impacts to prehistoric resources are unlikely to result from the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact.

No prehistoric resources were identified during surveys of the LLNL Livermore site (see Appendix H), including the currently undeveloped perimeter areas in the western and northern portions of the property. Due to lack of shelter, food, and water resources in prehistoric times, the Livermore Valley floor area, where the LLNL Livermore site is located, has a low probability of containing prehistoric resources. Therefore, implementation of the proposed action is not expected to affect prehistoric resources. Although no impacts to prehistoric resources are expected, there is the potential for encountering subsurface prehistoric resources during construction or operation activities. Thus, the following mitigation measure would be implemented.

Mitigation Measure 4.1.1: The Laboratory would require LLNL employees and contractors to report any evidence of cultural resources unearthed during development excavation at the LLNL Livermore site. An archaeologist would assess any unearthed resources at the construction site. If necessary, construction would be stopped to preclude disturbance of any cultural resources, conduct testing, and recommend mitigation measures in accordance with DOE and CEQA guidelines.

Impact 4.1.2 Implementation of the proposed action has the potential to adversely affect important historic resources on the LLNL Livermore site. This is a less than significant impact.

The importance of historic resources at the LLNL Livermore site has not yet been determined. The process for such a determination, which is being undertaken as part of the Section 106 process, includes an evaluation of whether portions of the Laboratory are eligible for the National Register, and development of a cultural resources management plan for the management of these resources. This process is discussed below, and in Appendix H. If portions of the LLNL Livermore site are found to be eligible for the National Register, implementing the proposed action may affect important historic resources. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and subsequent execution of an agreement, if required, would lead to the formulation of mitigation measures which will reduce potentially adverse effects to National Register–listed or –eligible properties. Because LLNL is required by law to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, and compliance with National Historic Preservation Act requirements will identify and delineate mitigation for potential impacts to historic resources at the LLNL Livermore site, impacts to historic resources are considered to be less than significant.

Prior to approval of federal funding for proposed action construction projects, and in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, a comprehensive evaluation of the historic importance of buildings and facilities within the LLNL Livermore site has recently been conducted to identify any that are potentially eligible for the National Register. This evaluation's objective was to identify the discrete facilities within the LLNL Livermore site that are eligible. LLNL and DOE will prepare appropriate documentation to allow a Determination of Effect to be made in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office. Should it be determined that the undertaking will have an effect on properties eligible for the National Register, then an appropriate agreement document will be prepared in coordination with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Office. Approval of the programmatic agreement by all parties would conclude compliance with Section 106 requirements. The programmatic agreement will outline the process for establishing a cultural resources management plan for handling any eligible facilities at the site. The agreement document and cultural resources management plan would (1) define which facilities, if any, are eligible for the National Register, (2) determine how alterations of those facilities will be managed considering their historic importance (i.e., data recovery), (3) define when and how consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office will occur, and (4) describe the role that the LLNL Livermore site archives and visitor center will play in preserving and interpreting historic information.

Prior to execution of an agreement document, if individual projects of the proposed action are being considered for federal funding, Section 106 compliance will occur through the normal environmental review of individual projects in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, NEPA and CEQA.

Although potential impacts to historic resources at the LLNL Livermore site are considered to be less than significant because LLNL will comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, the following measure would be implemented.

Mitigation Measure 4.1.2: Following completion of the Section 106 review process (i.e., compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act), the cultural resource management plan outlining the methodology for managing identified historic resources at the LLNL Livermore site would be made available to the public. In addition, management and mitigation activities implemented at the LLNL Livermore site would be reported annually.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 4.2.1 Impacts to prehistoric resources at LLNL Site 300 are unlikely to result from the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact.

No recorded prehistoric resources fall within the Area of Potential Effect (see Figure 5.1.4-1); therefore, no adverse impacts to prehistoric resources at LLNL Site 300 are expected. Should forthcoming, required consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office lead to agreement with this conclusion, no additional Section 106 responsibilities are required (see Appendix H for a description of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 process). The possibility that Native American traditional use areas and/or sacred resources exist within LLNL Site 300 that could potentially be affected by the proposed action has been evaluated. The State Native American Heritage Commission was contacted in 1981 and ethnographic literature was reviewed for the 1981 report (Busby, Garaventa, and Kobori, 1981); no resources were found. The Native American Heritage Commission was recontacted in 1991 and informed of the prehistoric sites found in the project area to review the possibility of ethnically important resources at LLNL Site 300; no traditional use areas or sacred resources were identified in the project area.

Although no impacts to prehistoric resources are expected, there is the potential for encountering subsurface prehistoric resources during construction or operation activities. Thus, the following mitigation measure would be implemented.

Mitigation Measure 4.2.1: The Laboratory would require LLNL employees and contractors to report any evidence of cultural resources unearthed during development excavation at LLNL Site 300. An archaeologist would assess any unearthed resources at the construction site. If necessary, construction would be stopped to preclude disturbance of any cultural resources, conduct resting, and recommend mitigation measures in accordance with DOE and CEQA guidelines.

Impact 4.2.2 Potential impacts to historic resources at LLNL Site 300 could occur as a result of the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact.

Reconnaissance in 1981 (Busby, Garaventa, and Kobori, 1981) located 21 historic resources (see Section 4.5 and Appendix H). During recent (1991) field surveys by Holman & Associates, 13 historic resources were relocated; seven of the historic resources, none of which were considered by the researchers in 1981 to be eligible for the National Register, could not be relocated and may no longer exist; and one historic resource had been removed during the 1981 field survey. The recorded locations of four of the missing historic resources fall within the Area of Potential Effect in the southeastern portion of LLNL Site 300. It was recommended by the researchers that because the sites no longer exhibit a visible cultural component, they do not meet the criteria for eligibility for the National Register. No record of a formal Determination of Eligibility from the State Historic Preservation Office is currently available on these or other properties identified during the 1981 cultural resources investigations.

The 1981 report (Busby, Garaventi, and Kobori, 1981) stated that the inventory of potentially important historic resources at LLNL Site 300 was not complete. Additional archival research was, therefore, recommended to clarify identification of existing resources and to locate new areas of potential historic resources associated with turn of the century industrial uses of the Carnegie area in the southern portion of the site. Additional research and site evaluation has been conducted for the portion of site CA-SJo-173H, the Carnegie townsite, that falls within the LLNL Site 300 boundary (William Self Associates, 1992).

Prior to approval of federal funding for proposed action construction projects, and in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the results of the additional archival research will be compiled and used as a basis from which to prepare detailed, updated Archaeological Site Records (Department of Parks and Recreation Form 422) and Historic Resources Inventory Forms (Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources Inventory Form 523) for the site. A complete mapping of the site and its numerous components would also be prepared for attachment to the site record. If exact resource boundaries cannot be defined, resource areas would be mapped to include a buffer area to protect the cultural deposits or features.

Information on the Carnegie site, as well as appropriate documentation of the history and prehistory of LLNL Site 300, will be provided to the State Historic Preservation Office with a request for concurrence as to National Register recommendations contained in those documents. Should the State Historic Preservation Office concur that a site(s) meets the National Register eligibility criteria, a Determination of Effect process then ensues, with the State Historic Preservation Office and DOE applying for Criteria of Effect as contained in 36 C.F.R. 800.4. Documentation of a finding of No Adverse Effect would terminate DOE's Section 106 compliance responsibilities regarding the properties.

If adverse effects on an eligible property are identified, then an agreement document will be developed in coordination with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Office, outlining DOE responsibilities in the process and measures to mitigate effects to the resource. Depending on the type of agreement document used, signatories would include DOE, the Advisory Council, the State Historic Preservation Office and other interested parties. Execution of the document and implementation of any required action would conclude DOE's Section 106 responsibilities.

Until such time as an agreement document is executed which covers the resources in question, projects that require federal funding would be subject to Section 106 review as part of DOE's responsibility under the National Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 compliance will occur through the specific environmental review of individual projects, in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, NEPA, and CEQA requirements.

Although potential impacts to historic resources at LLNL Site 300 are considered to be less than significant because LLNL will comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, the following measures will be implemented.

Mitigation Measure 4.2.2A: Following completion of the Section 106 review process (i.e., compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act), the cultural resource management plan outlining the methodology for managing identified historic resources at LLNL Site 300 would be made available to the public. In addition, management and mitigation activities implemented at LLNL Site 300 would be reported annually.

Mitigation Measure 4.2.2B: During construction activities at LLNL Site 300, access to any identified prehistoric or historic site located near the Area of Potential Effect, but not directly impacted by construction, would be restricted by means of stakes and flagging or warning fences.

Mitigation Measure 4.2.2C: Monitoring during grading would be conducted in areas where historic resources are determined to exist within the Area of Potential Effect.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 4.3.1 Impacts to prehistoric or historic resources at SNL, Livermore are unlikely to result from the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact.

No prehistoric resources were discovered during the archival and subsequent field inspections of the SNL, Livermore facilities or adjacent grounds (Busby and Garaventa, 1990). Consequently, no adverse impacts to prehistoric resources are expected from implementation of the proposed action and no further Section 106 evaluation is necessary (State Historic Preservation Office, 1990).

Based on the comprehensive evaluation of SNL, Livermore conducted in 1990 (Busby and Garaventa, 1990; Busby, Garaventa, and Harmon, 1990), it was not anticipated that any facilities at this site would qualify for the National Register. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with this recommendation (State Historic Preservation Office, 1990). Consequently, no impacts to historic resources are anticipated inside the borders of the facility, and no further Section 106 review is necessary.

Although no impacts to prehistoric or historic cultural resources are expected at SNL, Livermore, there is the potential for encountering subsurface cultural resources during construction or operation activities. The Laboratory has in place a Discovery Plan to be used by the facility engineering group when construction, remodeling, or upgrade is planned. The Discovery Plan requires employees and contractors to report any evidence of cultural resources unearthed during development excavation.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE

While they are distinct operations managed and operated by different contractors, for purposes of this cumulative discussion the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore are addressed together because of their proximity.

Impact 4.4.1 Cumulative impacts to prehistoric resources could result from regional development in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore. This is a potentially significant impact.

The cumulative impact study area for prehistoric and historic resources at the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore is defined as the Livermore Valley. The full extent of prehistoric resources within this study area cannot be delineated as part of this EIS/EIR; however, it is assumed that future development within the area could potentially impact these resources. While no prehistoric resources have been recorded either on the LLNL Livermore site or at SNL, Livermore, proposed project activities at these two facilities could result in impacts to heretofore undiscovered prehistoric resources. At this time, however, it is too speculative to determine whether the potential cumulative impact would be significant or not.

Mitigation Measure 4.4.1: The impacts of the proposed action will be mitigated as set forth in Mitigation Measure 4.1.1 . Impacts to prehistoric resources by other projects within the identified cumulative impact study area, but outside the boundaries of the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites, cannot be mitigated by DOE or UC.

Impact 4.4.2 Cumulative impacts to historic resources could result from regional development in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore. This is a potentially significant impact.

The full extent of historic resources within the identified cumulative impact study area in the Livermore Valley cannot be delineated in this EIS/EIR; however, it is assumed that future development within the area could potentially impact these resources. While impacts to potentially important historic resources at LLNL would be mitigated by compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, the Laboratory could contribute to potentially significant cumulative impacts. No impacts to historic resources are currently identified at SNL, Livermore; however, proposed project activities at this facility could result in impacts to heretofore undiscovered historic resources. However, at this time it is too speculative to determine whether the potential cumulative impact would be significant or not.

Mitigation Measure 4.4.2: The impacts of the proposed action will be mitigated as set forth in Mitigation Measure 4.1.2. Impacts to historic resources by other projects within the identified cumulative impact study area, but outside the boundaries of the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites, cannot be mitigated by DOE or UC.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 4.4.3 Cumulative impacts to prehistoric resources could result from regional development in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300. This is a potentially significant impact.

The cumulative impact study area for prehistoric resources at LLNL Site 300 is the area along the eastern Coast Range of eastern Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and Alameda counties, southwestern San Joaquin County, and western Stanislaus County, which in late prehistoric times was occupied primarily by the Valley Yokut and the Ohlone Indians. Of particular importance within the study area are special use sites, camp sites, and village sites located in the valley, and special use areas (such as rock quarries, rock shelters, acorn-gathering and hunting areas) located throughout the mountain range. Currently, there is a lack of information on prehistoric resources within this study area due to limited prehistoric inventory of the area. Therefore, cumulative impacts to prehistoric resources within the study area cannot be delineated as part of this EIS/EIR. However, because prehistoric resources are known to occur in the study area, it is assumed that future development within the area could potentially impact these resources. Although no prehistoric sites recorded at LLNL Site 300 are within the Area of Potential Effect, potential impacts to heretofore undiscovered subsurface resources could occur as a result of the proposed action. However, at this time it is too speculative to determine whether the potential cumulative impact would be significant or not.

Mitigation Measure 4.4.3: The impacts of the proposed action would be mitigated as set forth in Mitigation Measure 4.2.1. Impacts to prehistoric resources by other projects within the identified cumulative impact study area, but outside the boundary of LLNL Site 300, cannot be mitigated by DOE or UC.

Impact 4.4.4 Cumulative impacts to historic resources could result from regional development in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300. This is a potentially significant impact.

The cumulative impact study area for historic resources at LLNL Site 300 is defined as an approximate 5-mile radius around the site, which encompasses the Corral Hollow area and the former Carnegie townsite described in Appendix H. The historic importance of this area arises from the exploratory, ranching, mining, and historic manufacturing activities that occurred there. As discussed previously, cumulative impacts to these resources cannot be delineated as part of this EIS/EIR evaluation. However, because historic resources are known to occur within the study area, it is assumed that future development within the area could potentially impact historic resources. The potential project-specific impact to historic resources at LLNL Site 300 would be reduced to below a level of significance by compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. At this time, however, it is too speculative to determine whether the potential cumulative impact would be significant or not.

Mitigation Measure 4.4.4: The impacts of the proposed action would be mitigated as set forth in Mitigation Measures 4.2.2A, B, and C. Impacts to historic resources by other projects within the identified cumulative impact study area, but outside the boundaries of LLNL Site 300, cannot be mitigated by DOE or UC.

5.1.5 AESTHETICS AND SCENIC RESOURCES

LLNL Livermore Site

The area east of the LLNL Livermore site is generally rural and pastoral in character because of the surrounding hillside open space. West of the LLNL Livermore site is a residential development and to the south is SNL, Livermore. The area extending north from the LLNL Livermore site to I-580 is industrial, and provides a visual continuation of the research, business, and industrial character of the LLNL Livermore site. New facility construction and upgrades proposed for the LLNL Livermore site, a 9 percent increase in existing developed space, are not expected to adversely affect views from surrounding scenic roadways and adjacent residences.

LLNL Site 300

The area surrounding LLNL Site 300 is primarily undeveloped and rural in character, with topography varying from rolling hills to steep ridges and valleys. Corral Hollow Road is the 5 only public roadway in the vicinity with a view of the site. The proposed action, a 9 percent increase in existing developed space, includes several construction projects and facility improvements throughout the interior of LLNL Site 300 and in the vicinity of the General Services Area. The visual character of LLNL Site 300 would not be changed by the implementation of the proposed action.

SNL, Livermore

SNL, Livermore is adjacent to the LLNL Livermore site, and the surrounding area is similar in character. The proposed action, a 6 percent increase of existing developed space, is not expected to adversely affect views from surrounding scenic roadways and residences.

Standards of Significance

A project is considered to have a significant adverse aesthetic impact if it:

Substantially obstructs long-range views;
Substantially obstructs unique environmental or man-made visual features;
Substantially obstructs views from important public gathering places;
Conflicts with adopted environmental plans and goals (e.g., scenic resources policies);
Significantly alters the existing natural viewsheds, including natural terrain;
Significantly changes the existing visual quality of the region or eliminates visual resources; or
Significantly increases light and glare in the project vicinity.

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 5.1.1 New development under the proposed action would involve construction of additional buildings and upgrading or replacement of other buildings and infrastructure at the LLNL Livermore site, with possible impacts on the visual quality of the Laboratory. This is a less than significant impact.

A tract of single-family residences on the southwest corner of Patterson Pass Road and Vasco Road has direct views of the northwest corner of the LLNL Livermore site. This view consists primarily of the 500-ft-wide security buffer area and an adjacent 600-ft-wide undeveloped area with a row of trees in the background. The proposed action would retain the 500-ft-wide security buffer area. One new facility, a 40,000-sq-ft Atmospheric Emergency Response Facility, is proposed for construction within the currently undeveloped perimeter area along Westgate Road, approximately 600 ft east of Vasco Road. This new facility would be visible in the distance from the residential area. Construction activities for the new facility and supporting infrastructure would cause a short-term adverse impact on the view. The new facility would not create a significant long-term adverse impact since the facility's appearance would be similar in size and character to that of other existing structures at the LLNL Livermore site. The LLNL Livermore site is also prominently visible when approaching the site from the south on Vasco Road. Several scattered residences along Vasco Road, south of East Avenue, have views of the LLNL Livermore site. The LLNL Livermore site is visible from Greenville Road (designated as a scenic roadway in the general plans of the City of Livermore and Alameda County). A panoramic view of the LLNL Livermore site is available from the roadway when approaching from the south on Greenville Road. Structures, parking lots, and onsite landscaping of facilities are visible in the background.

Foreground views of the LLNL Livermore site are dominated by the presence of 9-ft-high security fencing and the 500-ft-wide buffer area at the site perimeter. While long-distance views may evidence increases in built space as a result of the proposed action, no significant alteration of the existing character and quality of the site is anticipated and, therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 5.1.2 The proposed action would alter views from roadways designated as scenic resources under plans and policies of the County of Alameda and the City of Livermore. This is a less than significant impact.

The following roadway segments in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site are designated as scenic routes according to the scenic route element of the County of Alameda General Plan (County of Alameda, 1966): Interstate 580, Vasco Road, Patterson Pass Road, Tesla Road, Greenville Road, Altamont Pass Road, and Cross Road (see section 4.6.3). Of these scenic roadways, Vasco Road, Patterson Pass Road, and Greenville Road have views of the LLNL Livermore site. The view of the LLNL Livermore site from Vasco Road, which consists primarily of the security buffer and undeveloped areas with a row of trees in the background, would not change under the proposed action. The view of the LLNL Livermore site from Patterson Pass Road consists of the 500-ft-wide security buffer, a row of pine trees, and the tops of structures in the background. This view would not be altered by the proposed action. The panoramic view of the LLNL Livermore site from Greenville Road south of East Avenue would remain essentially unchanged because of the distance of the proposed new structures from this segment of the roadway and because of intervening existing structures. Impacts on the views from these scenic roadways are anticipated to be less than significant.

The following roadways in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site are designated as "scenic routes" in the Scenic Route Element of the Livermore General Plan 1976–2000 (City of Livermore, 1977): Interstate 580, Greenville Road, Tesla Road, Altamont Pass Road, Patterson Pass Road, and Flynn Road. Of these scenic roadways, Patterson Pass Road and Greenville Road have views of the LLNL Livermore site. As discussed above, the views from Patterson Pass Road and Greenville would remain essentially unchanged. Impacts on the views from these scenic roadways are anticipated to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 5.2.1 New development under the proposed action includes several construction projects and facility improvements at LLNL Site 300, with possible impacts on the visual quality of the site. This is a less than significant impact.

Corral Hollow Road, which is adjacent to and south of LLNL Site 300, is the only public roadway in the vicinity with a view of the site. The LLNL Site 300 viewshed from Corral Hollow Road consists of the General Services Area in the foreground and rolling hillsides with a few scattered small structures on the hilltops. Most of the proposed new construction and facility upgrades would be located in the interior of LLNL Site 300 and would not be visible from Corral Hollow Road; however, the proposed action also includes construction projects and facility improvements near the more visible General Services Area. These projects include the replacement of Fire Station No. 2, the implementation of road improvements, and the construction of a new 1.7-mile water supply line from the General Services Area to the Hetch Hetchy tunnel within an existing access road right-of-way. During the construction phase, these projects could cause an adverse impact on views from Corral Hollow Road; however, because of their short-term nature and the limited area of landscape to be disturbed by these actions, potential view impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 5.2.2 Implementation of the proposed action at LLNL Site 300 would alter views from roadways designated as scenic resources under plans and policies of the County of San Joaquin or the County of Alameda. This is a less than significant impact.

A 16-mile portion of I-580 and I-5 between Stanislaus and Alameda counties is designated as an official state scenic highway (County of San Joaquin, 1978). LLNL Site 300, located approximately 4 miles south of this segment of I-580, is only partially visible from the roadway due to distance and intervening topography; therefore, the proposed action would not significantly alter the view from this state scenic highway.

Tesla Road in Alameda County (from Vasco Road to the San Joaquin County border) is designated as a scenic route by the scenic route element of the County of Alameda General Plan. Tesla Road is adjacent to the southern border of the portion of LLNL Site 300 that lies within Alameda County. (Tesla Road becomes Corral Hollow Road across the San Joaquin County border.) When approaching LLNL Site 300 from the west on Tesla Road, views of the site consist of rolling hillsides. No structures or landscaping on LLNL Site 300 are presently visible and no construction or upgrade activities are proposed in the southwest corner of the site from this roadway. In general, views of LLNL Site 300 from Corral Hollow Road are limited due to distance and intervening topography. Proposed structures would be located in portions of the site that are remote from Corral Hollow Road. Thus, impacts to views along this scenic roadway from the proposed action are expected to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 5.3.1 New development under the proposed action would involve construction of new facilities and upgrade or replacement of buildings and infrastructure at SNL, Livermore, with possible impacts on the visual quality of the Laboratory. This is a less than significant impact.

Like the LLNL Livermore site, SNL, Livermore is visible from Greenville Road, a scenic roadway under the City of Livermore and Alameda County general plans. In general, while long- distance views of SNL, Livermore may evidence increases in built space under the proposed action, no significant alteration of the existing character and quality of the site is anticipated.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 5.3.2 The proposed action would alter views from roadways designated as scenic resources under plans and policies of the County of Alameda and the City of Livermore. This is a less than significant impact.

The discussion presented under the LLNL Livermore site Impact 5.1.2 is also applicable to this impact.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 5.4.1 Buildout of approved and proposed developments in the vicinity of the Laboratories would potentially alter the visual quality of the region. This would be a potentially significant impact.

The proposed action would contribute a small increment to cumulative impacts on visual resources in the area. The cumulative impact study area with regard to viewshed impacts and scenic resource policies is defined as the area within a 2-mile radius surrounding the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore. The major approved and proposed projects within the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore include new residential, commercial, and business development north of I-580 in the North Livermore General Plan Area, several industrial projects south of I-580 and north of Patterson Pass Road, and the South Livermore General Plan Amendment area located south, southwest, and east of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore. Section 10 provides a description of these projects, and Figure 10-1 shows their approximate locations. Development of these approved and proposed projects could result in substantial alteration of natural viewsheds, and thus could lead to a cumulative impact on the visual resources of the area. At this time, however, it is too speculative to determine whether or not this impact would be significant.

Mitigation Measure: Measures to mitigate this impact are outside the authority of DOE or UC.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 5.4.2 Buildout of approved and proposed developments in the vicinity of the Laboratories would potentially alter the visual quality of the region. This would be a potentially significant impact.

The proposed action would contribute a small increment to cumulative impacts on visual resources of the area. The cumulative impact study area with regard to viewshed impacts and scenic resource policies is defined as the area within a 2-mile radius surrounding LLNL Site 300. Major planned and proposed projects near LLNL Site 300 include two new communities, Tracy Hills and Tracy Highlands. Section 10 provides a description of these projects, and Figure 10-1 shows their locations. Development of Tracy Hills and Tracy Highlands could result in substantial alteration of natural viewsheds, and thus could lead to a cumulative impact on the visual quality of the area. At this time, however, it is too speculative to determine whether or not this impact would be significant.

Mitigation Measure: Measures to mitigate this impact are outside the authority of DOE or UC.

5.1.6 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES AND HAZARDS

This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed action in relation to geologic (or geotechnical) hazards such as seismically induced hazards and nonseismic earth movements. It also discusses possible impacts to geologic resources such as mineral and construction material resources, soils, and fossils. As discussed in Section 4, the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore are located in a geologic setting characterized by seismic activity, geotechnical hazards, and the potential presence of various geologic resources including mineral deposits, fossils, and soil resources.

LLNL Livermore Site

The LLNL Livermore site is located in a relatively flat area near the foothills of the Altamont Hills. Potential sources for future ground motion include the Greenville, Las Positas, Vernon, Corral Hollow–Carnegie, and Williams faults. The site is also located in the Livermore Valley area, an area of documented mineral and construction material resources. These include gravel resources currently mined to the west of the City of Livermore and the Livermore oil field to the east. The LLNL Livermore site is bordered by fertile soils historically used for grazing and farming. The proposed action projects a 9 percent increase in gross square footage of developed space. New buildings and structures proposed as part of the proposed action could be affected both by dynamic hazards such as ground motion and fault rupture, and by static hazards such as differential settlement. Such hazards will be evaluated before construction activities under the proposed action begin.

LLNL Site 300

LLNL Site 300 is located in the rugged terrain of the Altamont Hills, characterized by ridges and steep-sided canyons and drainages. The active Corral Hollow–Carnegie fault zone crosses the southern portion of the site. Geologic outcrops are common, and exposures have been identified that contain both minerals and fossils. Land use has historically included grazing, though soils are not typically well developed or sufficiently thick for significant farming activities. The proposed action projects a 9 percent increase in gross square footage of developed space, which includes construction of structures that must consider seismicity, landslides, differential settlement, and protection of geologic resources such as fossils and mineral deposits.

SNL, Livermore

SNL, Livermore is located at the eastern end of the Livermore Valley. The majority of the site is relatively flat; the southeastern corner of SNL, Livermore is located on hilly terrain, characterized by steep slopes in some places. The hilly and flat terrains are separated by the Las Positas fault, which crosses the SNL, Livermore site. The proposed action projects a 6 percent increase in gross square footage of developed space. Any construction will involve seismic issues, the close proximity to faults and associated ground motion and surface faulting, hazards associated with building on steep slopes, and differential settlement. As part of the proposed action, SNL, Livermore is conducting a site seismic evaluation and modification for over 40 permanent buildings. Implementation of this proposed action would help reduce potential impacts relating to seismic hazards at SNL, Livermore.

Standards of Significance

For this EIS/EIR, significant seismic hazards would pertain to seismic conditions so unfavorable that they could not be overcome by special design using reasonable construction and/or maintenance practices. A project is considered to have a significant adverse geologic impact if it:

Exposes people or structures to major geologic hazards;
Is subject to liquefaction or other secondary seismic hazards in the event of ground shaking;
Is located within a known active fault zone or area characterized by surface rupture;
Is subject to static hazards, such as landsliding or excessively steep slopes, that could result in slope failure;
Substantially contaminates soils with toxic and hazardous materials;
Is subject to soil that is likely to collapse due to unique physical characteristics or because of subsidence due to ground water drawdown; shrink or swell, potentially causing structural failure; or cause ponding/flooding due to low permeability and drainage characteristics; or
Causes damage or destruction to a unique geologic feature, such as fossil-bearing formations, mineral deposits, or agriculturally valuable soils.

Unless otherwise noted, all identified impacts are considered to be significant adverse, and the proposed mitigation measures following each impact discussion will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.

Evaluation of impacts on geologic resources from geologic (or geotechnical) hazards was performed through review of appropriate geologic, mineral resources, soils, and facility maps and related publications. These included published regional fault maps and associated publications, maps and publications regarding regional and local seismicity, published maps showing landslides and other geologic mass movement features, mineral resources maps and documents published by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), and soil maps published and recently developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.

All identified impacts are considered to be significant adverse impacts, unless otherwise noted, and the proposed mitigation measures following each impact discussion would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Geologic Resources

No known geologic resources (aggregates, clay, coal, minerals, and fossils) would be adversely impacted by the proposed action. None of the proposed action activities are near or on any known or exploitable mineral resources, fossil beds, unique geologic outcrops, or other unique geologic features. None of the proposed action activities would impact farming or grazing activities.

Geologic Hazards

Impact 6.1.1 Siting of facilities in areas subject to strong ground shaking at the LLNL Livermore site may result in structural damage and increased exposure of people to risks associated with ground shaking.

Potentially strong earthquake ground motion sources at the LLNL Livermore site are discussed in section 4.8.3 and Appendix I, and include the major (San Andreas fault system) regional fault zones as well as local faults (including the Greenville, Las Positas, Verona, Corral Hollow–Carnegie, and Williams faults). Potential impacts expected from an earthquake generating ground motion of 0.8g are discussed in Appendix D, Appendix J, and section 5.6. As discussed here, significant adverse impacts to proposed structures and related infrastructure and surrounding communities could occur from hazardous materials releases and/or structural failure of buildings and facilities following a major seismic event. All new structures for human occupancy (occupied more than 2000 person-hrs/year) will be located more than 50 ft from an active fault trace. According to the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972, an active fault is defined as a fault that has had surface displacement during Holocene time (the last 11,000 years). In addition all waste management facilities will be located a minimum of 200 ft from an active fault.

The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts associated with ground motion to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure 6.1.1A: All buildings and facilities under the proposed action at the LLNL Livermore site, including retrofits, would be built or modified (or retrofitted) according to established seismic design criteria based on their hazard ranking and location as stated in DOE Order 5481.1B (see Appendix I).

Mitigation Measure 6.1.1B: Engineering and administrative measures would be taken to anticipate and prevent releases of hazardous substances resulting from strong ground shaking at any given facility. Discussions of these measures are included in Appendix D.

Impact 6.1.2 Expansive or shrink-swell soils and soils with low permeability could adversely affect proposed action development projects at the LLNL Livermore site.

Significant adverse impacts may result from building in areas with either expansive or poorly drained, low-permeability soils. The following mitigation measure will be continued to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure 6.1.2: Site-specific geotechnical investigations by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, or by a California Registered Geologist or a California Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical studies, would be performed for proposed structures. The recommendations of the geotechnical investigation regarding foundations and subterranean drainage would be included in project design.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Geologic Resources

No known geologic resources (aggregates, clay, coal, minerals, and fossils) would be adversely impacted at LLNL Site 300 as a result of the proposed action. None of the proposed action activities are situated near or on any known or exploitable mineral resources, fossil beds, unique geologic outcrops, or other unique geologic features. The newly discovered vertebrate fossil location at LLNL Site 300 is located over 500 ft from the nearest LLNL Site 300 building, and no construction activities are planned in the area.

Geologic Hazards

Impact 6.2.1 Siting of facilities in areas subject to strong ground shaking at LLNL Site 300 may result in structural damage and increased exposure of people to risks associated with ground shaking.

Potentially strong earthquake ground motion sources at LLNL Site 300 are discussed in section 4.8.3 and Appendix I and include the major regional fault zones as well as the local faults (including the Greenville, Las Positas, Verona, Corral Hollow–Carnegie, and Williams faults). Potential impacts from an earthquake generating ground motion of 0.8g are discussed in Appendix D, Appendix J, and section 5.6. As discussed in these sections, significant adverse impacts to the Laboratory and surrounding communities could occur from hazardous materials releases and/or structural failure of buildings and facilities following a seismic event. All new structures for human occupancy (occupied more than 2000 person-hrs/year) will be located more than 50 ft from an active fault trace. In addition, all waste management facilities will be located at a minimum of 200 ft from an active fault trace.

The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts associated with ground motion to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure 6.2.1A: All buildings and facilities would be built according to established seismic design criteria based upon their hazard ranking and location as stated in DOE Order 5481.1B (see Appendix I).

Mitigation Measure 6.2.1B: Engineering and administrative measures would be taken to anticipate and prevent releases of hazardous substances resulting from strong ground shaking at any given facility. Discussions of these measures are included in Appendix D and Appendix I.

Impact 6.2.2 Expansive or shrink-swell soils and soils with low permeability could adversely affect proposed action development projects at LLNL Site 300.

Construction of subterranean structures in poorly drained subsurface sediments could result in seepage problems. The following mitigation measure would be continued to reduce the impact from building in areas with either shrink-swell or poorly drained, low-permeability soils to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure 6.2.2: Site-specific geotechnical investigations by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, a California Registered Geologist or a California Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical studies would be performed for proposed structures. The recommendations of the geotechnical investigation would include those regarding foundations and subterranean drainage and would be included in project design.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Geologic Resources

No known geologic resources (aggregates, clay, coal, minerals, and fossils) would be adversely impacted at SNL, Livermore from the proposed action. None of the proposed action activities are on or near any known or exploitable mineral resources, fossil beds, unique geologic outcrops, or other unique geologic features.

Geologic Hazards

Impact 6.3.1 Siting of facilities in areas subject to strong ground shaking at SNL, Livermore may result in structural damage and increased exposure of people to risks associated with ground shaking.

Potential strong earthquake ground motion sources at SNL, Livermore are discussed in section 4.7.3 and Appendix I and include the major regional fault zones as well as the local faults (including the Greenville, Las Positas, Verona, Corral Hollow–Carnegie, and Williams faults). Potential impacts from an earthquake generating ground motion of 0.8g are discussed in Appendix D, Appendix J, and section 5.2.1.3. As discussed in these sections, significant adverse impacts to SNL, Livermore and surrounding communities could occur from hazardous materials releases, and/or structural failure of buildings and facilities, following a seismic event. All new structures for human occupancy (occupied more than 2000 person-hrs/year) will be located more than 50 ft from an active fault trace. In addition, all waste management facilities will be located at a minimum of 200 ft from an active fault trace.

The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts associated with ground motion to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure 6.3.1A: All new buildings and facilities would be built according to established seismic design criteria based upon their hazard ranking and location as stated in DOE Order 5481.1B (see Appendix I).

Mitigation Measure 6.3.1B: Engineering and administrative measures would be taken to anticipate and prevent releases of hazardous substances resulting from strong ground shaking at any given facility. Discussions of these measures are included in Appendix D and Appendix I.

Mitigation Measure 6.3.1C: Site-specific geotechnical investigations by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or by a California Registered Geologist and a California Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical investigation would continue to be performed for proposed structures. The recommendations of the geotechnical investigation would include those regarding foundations and subterranean drainage and would be included in project design.

Impact 6.3.2 The potential exists for surface faulting at SNL, Livermore, near the north branch of the Las Positas fault, which may result in structural failure or expose people to potential safety hazards. This is a significant impact.

Proposed development projects under the proposed action are generally not on or immediately near the known trace of the Las Positas fault. However, the possibility for surface rupture in this active tectonic setting results in a significant adverse impact. The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts associated with surface rupture to a less than significant level. All structures for human occupancy (occupied more than 2000 person-hrs/year) would be located more than 50 ft from an active fault trace. All waste management facilities will be located at a minimum of 200 ft from an active fault trace.

Mitigation Measure 6.3.2A: All new buildings and facilities would be built according to established seismic design criteria based upon their hazard ranking and location as stated in DOE Order 5481.1B (see Appendix I).

Mitigation Measure 6.3.2B: Site-specific geotechnical investigations by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or by a California Registered Geologist and a California Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical studies would continue to be performed for proposed structures. The recommendations of the geotechnical investigation would include those regarding foundations and seismicity and would be included in project design.

Impact 6.3.3 Expansive or shrink-swell soils and soils with low permeability could adversely affect proposed action development projects at SNL, Livermore.

Construction of subterranean structures in poorly drained subsurface sediments could result in seepage problems. The following mitigation measure is proposed to reduce the impacts associated with building in areas with either expansive or poorly drained, low-permeability soils to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure 6.3.3: Site-specific geotechnical investigations by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or by a California Registered Geologist and a California Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical studies would continue to be performed for proposed structures. The recommendations of the geotechnical investigation would include those regarding foundations and subterranean drainage and would be included in project design.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 6.4.1 Proposed development projects and population growth could expose people to geologic hazards. This is a less than significant impact.

People working in structures at the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore, and those living in the area of those facilities would be exposed to landslides, ground shaking, and associated hazards that commonly occur in a seismically active area.

The implementation of the mitigation measures described in section 5.1.6 for planned construction projects under the proposed action would reduce the risk of seismically induced structural damage and personal injury at the Laboratories. A major seismic event, however, would likely expose entire communities surrounding the Laboratories to similar risks, and the potential cumulative impacts due to seismically induced structural failure and resultant injury would be significant. An evaluation of the cumulative impacts associated with such an event, including those impacts from surrounding communities, is beyond the scope of this document. For a discussion of various seismic accident scenarios and related cumulative impacts, see section 5.6. To the extent that the mitigation measures described in section 5.1.6 are applied and the LLNL Seismic Safety Program and comparable seismic guidelines for SNL, Livermore are applied, Laboratory contributions to cumulative impacts would be minimized.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 6.4.2 Proposed development projects and population growth could expose people to geologic hazards. This is a less than significant impact.

People working in structures at LLNL Site 300 and those living in the area of this facility would be exposed to landslides, ground shaking, and associated hazards that commonly occur in a seismically active area. The potential for injuries from a major seismic event would increase if the appropriate mitigation measures described in section 5.1.6 were not implemented for new buildings, and if engineering and administrative measures were not taken to anticipate and prevent releases of hazardous substances resulting from ground shaking at any given facility.

The implementation of the mitigation measures described in section 5.1.6 for planned construction projects under the proposed action would reduce the risk of seismically induced structural damage and personal injury at LLNL Site 300. A major seismic event, however, would likely expose entire communities surrounding LLNL Site 300 to similar risks, and the potential cumulative impacts due to seismically induced structural failure and resultant injury would be significant. An evaluation of the cumulative impacts associated with such an event, including those impacts from surrounding communities, is beyond the scope of this document. For a discussion of various seismic accident scenarios and related cumulative impacts, see section 5.6. To the extent that the mitigation measures described in section 5.1.6 are applied and the LLNL Seismic Safety Program guidelines are applied, Laboratory contributions to cumulative impacts would be minimized.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

5.1.7 ECOLOGY

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed action on biological resources, including vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species and other sensitive species, and wetlands. The current operations and existing biological resources are discussed in detail in Appendices F and G and summarized in section 4.9 of this EIS/EIR.

Standards of Significance

A project is considered to have a significant adverse impact on flora and fauna if it:

Substantially affects an endangered, threatened, or other sensitive species or its habitat;
Substantially interferes with movement of any resident or migratory fish and/or wildlife species;
Substantially diminishes habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants;
Causes a fish and/or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; or
Adversely affects significant riparian lands, wetlands, marshes, or other wildlife habitats.

All identified impacts are considered to be significant adverse impacts, unless otherwise noted, and, except for the cumulative impacts, the proposed mitigation measures following each impact discussion will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.

Vegetation

LLNL Livermore Site

The vegetation at the LLNL Livermore site consists of areas of planted lawns and ornamental vegetation, fields dominated by early successional plant species, annual grasslands in the security zone, and remnant wooded riparian vegetation along Arroyo Seco. The proposed action at the LLNL Livermore site, which projects a 9 percent increase in gross square footage of developed space, consists mainly of building construction, facility upgrades, and operational modifications. These actions would affect plant communities in the built-up areas at the LLNL Livermore site.

LLNL Site 300

LLNL Site 300 vegetation consists of a diverse interspersion of four upland plant community types including perennial native grasslands. The proposed action, which projects a 9 percent increase in gross square footage of developed space, consists of three projects that would have an effect on vegetation at LLNL Site 300.

SNL, Livermore

Vegetation at SNL, Livermore consists of areas of planted lawns and ornamental vegetation, fields dominated by early successional plant species, annual grasslands in the security zone, and remnant riparian vegetation along Arroyo Seco. The proposed action at SNL, Livermore, which projects a 6 percent increase in gross square footage of developed space, consists mainly of building construction and infrastructure modernization. These activities would affect vegetation in the built-up areas at the SNL, Livermore site.

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 7.1.1 The proposed action would affect vegetation principally by clearing land for construction projects. This is a less than significant impact.

These activities include building construction, upgrading existing buildings, road and parking lot repairs, modification of site energy management, and other activities. These activities would take place on land that currently does not support vegetation, has been landscaped, or supports an early successional plant community indicative of recent land disturbances. Therefore, the impact of the proposed action on vegetation is less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 7.2.1 The proposed action would affect vegetation (introduced grassland plant communities) principally by clearing land for construction projects. This is a less than significant impact.

Six proposed projects have the potential to impact plant communities at LLNL Site 300: (1) the Explosives Waste Storage Facility and Explosives Waste Treatment Facility; (2) the Contained Firing Facility; (3) the replacement of Fire Station No. 2; (4) the Cheap Access to Orbit Facility; (5) the Flash X-Ray upgrade; and (6) the elimination of surface water runoff from the cooling towers. These projects are described in greater detail in section 3.1.2 and in Appendix A (section A.2.5). The Explosives Waste Storage Facilities Project would consist of the rearrangement of four existing high explosives storage units for the storage of explosive wastes. The Explosives Waste Treatment Facility would replace the high explosive waste open burning facility at Building 829. These projects would result in a very limited amount of disturbance to the grassland plant community (less than 0.1 acre).

The Contained Firing Facility at the Building 801 complex would result in the enclosure of firing operations at the weapons test facility, Bunker 801. Construction of this enclosure would take place at this existing facility. It is estimated that 0.25 acre of the introduced grassland plant community would be disturbed by this project.

The replacement of Fire Station No. 2 would take place in the built-up General Services Area and would not involve any disturbance to the natural plant communities.

The Cheap Access to Orbit Facility would be constructed near Building 865 on previously disturbed ground and in the introduced grassland plant community. An estimated 0.9 acre would be disturbed for the construction of this project. This facility would be tested for 3 years and then disassembled and removed.

The Flash X-Ray Upgrade would involve upgrades at Building 801 and would not involve clearing any land.

The elimination of surface runoff from onsite cooling towers would involve constructing leach fields near the cooling towers for the runoff. At this time, it is estimated that leach fields would be constructed for 21 of the 24 cooling towers on site (leach fields would not be constructed for Buildings 810, 836a, and 865). The location and size of the leach fields have not been determined. However, they would likely be constructed in disturbed areas near the cooling towers. Assuming each of the 21 leach fields would require 120×20 ft of linear trenching, then this project would result in the disturbance of approximately 1.2 acres of land in previously disturbed areas or, possibly, in the introduced grassland plant community.

The proposed action would, then, result in the clearing of approximately 2.4 acres of land in previously disturbed areas and within the introduced grassland plant community. Because the disturbed areas would not be substantial or in sensitive plant communities, the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 7.3.1 The proposed action would affect vegetation principally by clearing land for building construction projects and infrastructure modernization (e.g., roof replacements, resurfacing paved areas, renovation of site fire water system). This is a less than significant impact.

These activities would occur on land that currently does not support vegetation, has been landscaped, or supports an early successional plant community indicative of recent land disturbances. Therefore, the impact of the proposed action on vegetation is less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE

While operated by separate contractors and managed by different DOE operational offices, for purposes of this discussion of cumulative impacts on vegetation, the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore are addressed together because of their proximity.

Impact 7.4.1 Cumulative impacts to vegetation may result from regional development in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore. This has the potential to be a significant unavoidable impact.

The cumulative impacts study area for vegetation is defined as the Livermore Valley. The full extent of undeveloped plant communities within this study area cannot be delineated as part of this EIS/EIR; however, it is assumed that the future development within the area could impact this resource. As essentially no undeveloped plant communities would be impacted at either the LLNL Livermore site or at SNL, Livermore, activities associated with the proposed action would not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts to undeveloped plant communities within the study area.

Mitigation Measure 7.4.1: Impacts to vegetation within the cumulative impact study area cannot be mitigated by DOE or UC.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 7.4.2 Cumulative impacts to vegetation may result from regional development in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300. The contribution of the proposed action to this impact would be less than significant.

The cumulative impact study area for vegetation is the rolling terrain and steep canyon areas in the Diablo Range. The full extent of undeveloped plant communities within this study area is not fully known and cannot be delineated as part of this EIS/EIR. However, it is known that at least four developments totaling approximately 10,000 acres have the potential to be constructed in the area of LLNL Site 300 (see Section 10) and these projects would, if constructed, impact this resource. Because only 2.4 acres of plant communities would be impacted at LLNL Site 300, activities associated with the proposed action would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts on native or sensitive plant communities within the study area. The overall impact of operations at LLNL Site 300 has had a positive cumulative impact on vegetation in that these operations (e.g., exclusion of grazing and the annual controlled burn) have promoted the development of a diverse mosaic of largely undisturbed plant communities, including large stands of native perennial grasslands which are now rare in California.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Wildlife

LLNL Livermore Site

The wildlife diversity at the LLNL Livermore site is low because of the highly altered nature of the site. The proposed action consists mainly of construction projects in the developed areas of the site. These activities would affect resident wildlife in the built-up areas.

LLNL Site 300

LLNL Site 300 supports a diversity of wildlife species because much of the area has not been disturbed. The proposed action consists of three projects that would have an effect on wildlife at LLNL Site 300.

SNL, Livermore

The wildlife diversity at SNL, Livermore is low because the site has been highly altered. The proposed action consists of construction projects in the built-up part of the site that would have an effect on resident wildlife.

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 7.1.2 The proposed action would affect wildlife principally by clearing land for construction projects. This is a less than significant impact.

These activities include building construction, upgrading of existing buildings, modification of site energy management, and other activities. These activities would take place in areas that do not support wildlife, in areas that support wildlife typical of built-up areas, or in areas that support species typical of early successional habitats. Therefore, the impact of the proposed action on wildlife is less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 7.2.2 The proposed action would affect wildlife principally by clearing wildlife habitat for construction projects. This is a less than significant impact.

The proposed action would result in the clearing of approximately 2.4 acres of wildlife habitat on previously disturbed ground or in the introduced grassland plant community (see section 5.1.7.1 for a description of the projects that would result in this disturbance). This land represents marginal wildlife habitat because it occurs on previously disturbed ground or grassland habitat in areas of relatively high levels of human activity (e.g., next to Building 801 for the Contained Firing Facility, near Building 865 for the Cheap Access to Orbit Facility, and next to existing structures for the cooling tower water runoff leach fields). Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 7.2.3 The Contained Firing Facility would reduce noise-related impacts to wildlife. This is a beneficial impact.

The operation of the Contained Firing Facility would result in a reduction in noise levels because explosives testing that now takes place outdoors would take place inside a building. The degree to which noise would be reduced by this facility cannot be quantified because information regarding the noise attenuation capabilities of this facility are currently unavailable (see section 5.1.10 for more details).

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 7.2.4 The Contained Firing Facility would eliminate the potential impact to wildlife from flying debris. This is a beneficial impact.

The operation of the Contained Firing Facility would eliminate the potential for flying debris from explosives testing to strike wildlife. While there has been no verified occurrence of flying debris injuring or killing wildlife, the potential does exist, especially for birds of prey that may be flying or soaring over the facility at the time of a test.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 7.2.5 The Cheap Access to Orbit Facility would result in noise impacts to wildlife because of the loud noise generated during testing. This is a less than significant impact.

The Cheap Access to Orbit Facility would result in elevated noise levels during the tests. It is predicted that noise levels would be 116 dB and 108 dB at distances of 1300 and 2600 ft from the facility, respectively, and that these tests would occur once every 7 days (DOE, 1991). While it is difficult to quantify the impacts of noise on wildlife, it is known that current explosives testing onsite have resulted in comparable or higher noise levels at the site boundary (see section 4.12). Therefore, since LLNL Site 300 supports a diverse assemblage of wildlife under current noise conditions, since the Cheap Access to Orbit Facility would not result in an increase in noise over current levels, and since noise from explosives testing would be reduced (see Impact 7.2.3 above), this impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 7.3.2 The proposed action would affect wildlife principally by disrupting habitat through building construction and infrastructure modernization. This is a less than significant impact.

These activities would take place on land that does not currently support wildlife, supports wildlife found in built-up areas, or supports wildlife typical of early successional habitat. Therefore, the impact of the proposed action on wildlife would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE

The cumulative impacts study area for wildlife is defined as the Livermore Valley. The full extent of undeveloped wildlife habitat within this study area is not known and cannot be delineated as part of this EIS/EIR; however, it is assumed that future development within the area could impact this resource. As essentially no undeveloped wildlife habitat would be impacted at either the LLNL Livermore site or at SNL, Livermore, activities associated with the proposed action would not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts to undeveloped wildlife habitat within the study area.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

The cumulative impact study area for wildlife habitat is the rolling terrain and steep canyon areas in the Diablo Range. The full extent of undeveloped wildlife habitat within this study area cannot be delineated as part of this EIS/EIR. However, it is known that at least four developments totaling approximately 10,000 acres have the potential to be constructed in the area of LLNL Site 300 (see Section 10) and these projects would, if constructed, impact this resource. Because only 2.4 acres of wildlife habitat would be impacted at LLNL Site 300, activities associated with the proposed action would not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts to undeveloped wildlife habitat within the study area. The overall impact of operations at LLNL Site 300 has had a positive cumulative impact on wildlife in that these operations (e.g., exclusion of grazing and the annual controlled burn) have promoted the development of a diverse mosaic of largely undisturbed plant communities that supports a diverse assemblage of wildlife.

Threatened and Endangered Species

LLNL Livermore Site

Threatened, endangered, or other sensitive species of concern (sensitive species) have not been observed at the LLNL Livermore site.

LLNL Site 300

Sensitive species occur at LLNL Site 300. Implementation of the proposed action would result in the disturbance of potential sensitive species habitat.

SNL, Livermore

Sensitive species have not been observed at SNL, Livermore.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 7.2.6 The proposed action would affect sensitive species principally by disrupting habitat for construction projects.

Surveys indicated that the following sensitive species or sensitive species potential habitats occur at LLNL Site 300: large-flowered fiddleneck, potential valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, potential Alameda whipsnake habitat, California horned lizard, golden eagle, burrowing owl, potential tricolored blackbird habitat, San Joaquin pocket mouse, American badger, and potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat.

Of the species listed above, the clearing of approximately 2.4 acres of disturbed land and grassland habitat has the potential to impact the California horned lizard, burrowing owl, San Joaquin pocket mouse, American badger, and potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat. This potential impact is less than significant given the small area of land that would be cleared and the implementation of the mitigation measures listed below.

The proposed action would not have the potential to impact other sensitive species at LLNL Site 300. However, the mitigation measures listed below are also designed to protect these sensitive species from activities that may inadvertently impact them. These include such measures as protecting the large-flowered fiddleneck populations and creating buffer zones around areas of elderberry bushes (potential habitat for valley elderberry longhorned beetle). In addition, current operational practices that are a benefit to sensitive species, such as the employee awareness program, maintaining a 35-mph speed limit, continuing the controlled burn, and excluding livestock grazing, will continue.

Except for Mitigation Measure 7.2.6D, the following measures apply only to LLNL Site 300.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6A: DOE and UC will enhance their current employee awareness program to reflect biological mitigation measures. The employee awareness program will include all LLNL employees and contract personnel working at LLNL Site 300.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6B: DOE and UC will ensure that no construction-related activities occur within a 300-ft radius of known locations of elderberry bushes (see Figure F-18 in Appendix F). Elderberry bushes are habitat for the federally listed valley elderberry longhorn beetle.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6C: DOE and UC will evaluate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's fairy shrimp sampling protocol when published. The evaluation will focus on the need for additional sampling to ensure consistency between survey techniques described in section F.2.4.5 and those of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6D: DOE and UC will continue to limit the use of sulfur cartridges and anticoagulant ground squirrel poisons such as fumarin, sevin, and diphazinone (except within the fenced surface impoundments on LLNL Site 300). Zinc phosphite, which is much less injurious to canids, will remain the rodenticide of choice. (This measure also applies to the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore.)

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6E: Consistent with current practice, speed limits of 35 miles per hour or less at LLNL Site 300 will be maintained. Vehicle traffic will also be confined to existing roads (paved and unpaved) to the extent possible.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6F: Warning sounds will continue to be broadcast from each testing facility before a detonation. In addition to warning personnel working in the area, this broadcast would scare away birds, particularly raptors, from the explosion test site.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6G: To maintain and promote habitat diversity, DOE and UC will continue to exclude livestock grazing and will continue the annual controlled burning program on LLNL Site 300.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6H: DOE and UC will continue to protect the large-flowered fiddleneck population near the Drop Tower by maintaining the fence, controlling access, and prohibiting activities that may adversely impact the population. A second population is in a remote canyon at a distance from current or proposed activities and requires no additional protection.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6I: DOE and UC will continue to maintain the fire roads and disked areas in the same locations to the extent possible. After evaluation, where possible, duplicate roads paralleling other roads will be eliminated.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6J: Herbicide use will remain limited to areas around buildings and other facilities or eliminated, if possible.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6K: Consistent with current construction practices, all food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps will be disposed of in a closed container or removed from the construction site.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6L: Undisturbed areas (i.e., areas having minimal recent surface disturbance) that may be affected by proposed construction projects will be surveyed for dens of the San Joaquin kit fox no earlier than 60 days prior to the beginning of construction activities. The survey area will include a minimum 300-ft buffer zone around the proposed construction zone. For new fire trails, linear trenching, or the redisking of the fire break in the northeastern corner of LLNL Site 300, the buffer zone will cover 50 ft on either side of the right-of-way. In addition, a 50-ft buffer zone will be established around monitor well installations. Methods employed during these surveys will follow techniques acceptable to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989). Disturbed areas will not be surveyed because of the enhanced awareness program, however, personnel would be aware of the potential for kit fox at the site.

Depending upon the results of the survey outlined in mitigative measure 7.2.6L, the following measures may be implemented.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6M: Consistent with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1989) recommendations, protective exclusion zones will be established around kit fox dens (see Table F-14 in Appendix F for kit fox den classifications) observed in the 300- or 50-ft buffer zone. These exclusion zones will be the following distances:

Known kit fox dens = 200 ft
Pupping kit fox dens (dens with sign of pupping activity) = 300 ft
Potential kit fox dens = 25 ft

DOE and UC will restrict activities within these exclusion zones: only essential vehicle operation will be allowed, and construction, materials storage, or other types of surface-disturbing activity will be prohibited or minimized. New roads will be kept to a minimum and vehicle traffic will be restricted to roads that are necessary for construction. If it is impossible to maintain acceptable exclusion zones, DOE and UC will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game to modify exclusion zone dimensions or time restrictions. Alternative courses of action may also be taken (e.g., mitigation measures 7.2.6Q and 7.2.6R below).

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6N: Any known and pupping kit fox dens found will be posted with a sign near the den entrance stating the presence of the sensitive resource. To ensure protection of these dens, fencing will be installed around each one following the exclusion distances specified above. The exclusion fencing will consist of large stakes (4- to 5-ft metal or 1×1-inch wooden stakes) connected with a heavy rope or cord, and will be maintained for the duration of the construction project. The exclusion area can be modified as described in measure 7.2.6M.

Potential kit fox dens found within a proposed construction site buffer zone will have 2-ft wooden stakes with flagging placed at the den's entrance and will be maintained for the duration of the construction project.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6O: Monthly checks of known and pupping dens will be conducted to ensure that the signs, stakes, and fencing are still intact. Monitoring will be done as unobtrusively as possible, staying outside the exclusion zones.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6P: To prevent the kit fox (and other species of concern) from being injured or trapped during the construction phase of a project, excavated steep-walled holes or trenches greater than 2 ft deep will be covered with plywood at the close of each working day, or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they will be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6Q: If potential kit fox dens would be unavoidably destroyed by construction or other related activities, the following procedures will be initiated prior to disturbance. The dens will be monitored by a trained kit fox biologist for 2 to 3 days to determine if they are being used by kit fox. Activity at the dens can be monitored by placing tracking medium at the den's entrance and by night spotlighting. If there is sign of kit fox activity, the dens will be observed for 2 to 3 more days to allow the animal to move to another den during its normal activities. If there is no activity, the den will be destroyed.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6R: If known kit fox dens occur within the areas of proposed disturbance or development, and impact to these resources is unavoidable, the following procedures will be implemented. Prior to the onset of construction and den destruction, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game will be notified in writing of the intent to destroy dens, and reasons will be provided why alternative courses of action are not possible. The dens will not be impacted until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are provided the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed action. These agencies may recommend alternative courses of action to avoid den destruction or reduce impacts.

If permission is given by these agencies, excavation of known kit fox dens may then proceed. When the den is thought to be unoccupied, the entrance can then be progressively plugged with loose dirt for several days to discourage the use of the den while still allowing resident animals to escape easily. When signs of activity at the den cease and it is deemed safe to do so by a trained kit fox biologist, the den can be dug out with hand tools to a point at which it is certain no kit fox is using the den. The den will be fully excavated and then filled with dirt and compacted to ensure that a kit fox cannot reenter the den during the construction period. If at any point a kit fox is thought to be using the den, the plugging or excavation activity will stop, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game will be contacted. All plugging and excavation efforts will be conducted by a trained kit fox biologist.

If excavation of a pupping den is unavoidable, the plugging and excavation activities will not take place during the breeding season (January through June).

Den monitoring and plugging activities will be fully documented and reported in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6S: If construction activities impact known kit fox dens, then artificial dens may be installed at an agreed-upon location. LLNL will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game on the appropriate placement and design of artificial dens.

Because the burrowing owl and American badger are state species of special concern, occur on LLNL Site 300, and may be impacted by the proposed action, the following mitigation measures will be undertaken coincident with kit fox activities.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6T: Undisturbed areas that might be affected by proposed construction projects will be surveyed (including a 300-ft buffer zone) for known burrows or dens of the burrowing owl and American badger no sooner than 60 days prior to the beginning of construction activities. For new fire trails, the buffer zone will cover 50 ft on either side of the right-of-way.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6U: If known dens are identified within the survey area, exclusion zones of 50 ft will be established and delineated.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6V: LLNL will restrict activities within these exclusion zones: only essential vehicle operation will be allowed, and construction materials storage, or other types of surface-disturbing activity, will be prohibited or minimized. New roads will be kept to a minimum and vehicle traffic will be restricted to roads that are necessary for construction. If it is impossible to maintain acceptable exclusion zones, LLNL will consult with the California Department of Fish and Game to modify exclusion zone dimensions.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.6W: If known dens will be unavoidably impacted, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game will occur to determine acceptable procedures for destruction of the dens.

Impact 7.2.7 The Contained Firing Facility would reduce potential noise-related impacts on sensitive species. This is a beneficial impact.

This would be a beneficial impact for reasons given under Impact 7.2.3 above.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 7.2.8 The Contained Firing Facility would eliminate the potential impact to wildlife from flying debris. This is a beneficial impact.

This impact would be beneficial for reasons given under Impact 7.2.4 above.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 7.2.9 The Cheap Access to Orbit Facility would result in potential noise impacts to sensitive species. This is a less than significant impact.

This impact would be less than significant for reasons given under Impact 7.2.5 above.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE

While operated by separate contractors and managed by different DOE operational offices, for purposes of this discussion of cumulative impacts on vegetation and wildlife, the LLNL Livermore Site and SNL, Livermore are addressed together because of their proximity.

The cumulative impact study area for sensitive species varies with each species. In general, this area is considered the occupied and/or historic range of the species in question. The occurrence of sensitive species within their specific ranges is not fully known and cannot be delineated as part of this EIS/EIR; however, it is assumed that future development within these ranges would impact sensitive species. Since no sensitive species were recorded at either study site, activities associated with the proposed action would not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts on sensitive species.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 7.4.3 Cumulative impacts to sensitive species may result from development in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300.

The cumulative impact study area for sensitive species varies with each species. In general, this area is considered the occupied and/or historic range of the species. The cumulative impact study areas for sensitive species or sensitive species potential habitat were extracted from the biological assessment (Appendix F, section F.2) and are as follows:

Large-flowered fiddleneck: Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin counties, California.
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle: Central Valley, California.
California tiger salamander: Sonoma County south to the Santa Rita Hills in Santa Barbara County and east to the foothills of the Sierras, California.
California red-legged frog: California coastal counties to the Sierra foothills, California.
Alameda whipsnake: Coastal ranges of Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California.
California horned lizard: Occurs throughout much of California, west of the deserts.
Golden eagle: Throughout California and much of North America.
Burrowing owl: Occurs in open grasslands throughout much of central California.
Tricolored blackbird: Occurs in wetlands east of the Sierras in California.
San Joaquin pocket mouse: Occurs in the Sacramento Valley from Tehama county southward and the San Joaquin Valley to Rose Station, California.
American badger: Occurs throughout most of California, the western and central states of the United States, and the provinces of Canada.
San Joaquin kit fox: Occurs in the low foothills surrounding the San Joaquin Valley, portions of the San Joaquin Valley Floor, and the interior Coast Range valleys.

The occurrence of the above-listed sensitive species within their specific ranges is not fully known and cannot be delineated as part of this EIS/EIR. However, it is known that at least four developments totaling approximately 10,000 acres have the potential to be constructed in the area of LLNL Site 300 (see Section 10) and would, if constructed, result in cumulative impacts to sensitive species. As only 2.4 acres of potential sensitive species habitat would be impacted at LLNL Site 300 and mitigation measures would be implemented as described above in this section, activities associated with the proposed action would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts to sensitive species. The overall impact of operations at LLNL Site 300 has had a positive cumulative impact on sensitive species in that these operations (e.g., exclusion of grazing, the annual controlled burn, and restricted access) have promoted the development of a largely undisturbed mosaic of habitats conducive to the occurrence of sensitive species.

Mitigation Measure 7.4.3: The impacts of the proposed action will be mitigated as set forth under Impact 7.2.6. Impacts to sensitive species by other projects within the cumulative impact study areas cannot be mitigated by DOE or UC.

Wetlands

LLNL Livermore Site

Wetlands at the LLNL Livermore site consist of 0.36 acre in three areas along Arroyo Las Positas. The proposed action would not impact these wetlands.

LLNL Site 300

There are an estimated 6.76 acres of wetlands at LLNL Site 300. Because the 2.4 acres of lands to be cleared under the proposed action are in upland areas, there would be no direct or indirect impact upon natural wetlands. Some impact upon artificial wetlands may occur.

SNL, Livermore

Wetlands at SNL, Livermore consist of 1.44 acres. The proposed action would not impact these wetlands.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 7.2.10 The proposed action would result in the elimination of artificial wetlands as a result of a project designed to stop surface water runoff from onsite cooling towers.

Artificial wetlands created by surface water runoff occur near Buildings 801, 827, 851, and 865. The cooling tower runoff project would eliminate surface water runoff from 21 of the 24 onsite cooling towers including the cooling towers at Buildings 827 and 851. Therefore, the 0.5 acre of wetlands near these two buildings would disappear. Artificial wetlands at Buildings 801 and 865 would not be impacted by this project. This 0.5 acre of wetlands would not be regulated by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. However, the State of California has a no net loss policy regarding wetlands including artificial wetlands such as those at Buildings 827 and 851. The following mitigation measure will reduce the impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 7.2.10: The 0.5 acre of lost wetlands would be replaced pursuant to consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. One potential measure would be to use the artificial wetland vegetation that would likely be created in Corral Hollow Creek as a result of the ground water restoration project at LLNL Site 300 as mitigation for these lost wetlands. The ground water restoration project is an ongoing project at LLNL Site 300 that is part of continuing operations. See Appendix G, section G.5 for additional details regarding this mitigation option.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE

The cumulative impact study area for wetlands is defined as the Livermore Valley. The full extent of wetlands within this study area cannot be delineated as part of this EIS/EIR; however, it is assumed that the future development within the area could impact this resource. As no wetlands would be impacted at the LLNL Livermore site or at SNL, Livermore, activities associated with the proposed action would not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts to wetlands within the study area.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 7.4.4 Cumulative impacts to wetlands may result from regional development in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300. This is potentially a significant and unavoidable impact.

The cumulative impact study area for wetlands is the rolling terrain and steep canyon areas in the Diablo Range. The full extent of wetlands within this study area is not known and is beyond the scope of this EIS/EIR. However, it is known that at least four developments totaling approximately 10,000 acres have the potential to be constructed in the area of LLNL Site 300 (see Section 10) and these projects would, if constructed, impact this resource. Because only 0.5 acre of artificial wetlands would be impacted at LLNL Site 300, and these wetlands would be replaced consistent with the California Department of Fish and Game Policy, activities associated with the proposed action would not significantly contribute to any potential cumulative impacts to wetlands within the study area. The overall impact of operations at LLNL Site 300 has had a positive cumulative impact on wetlands in that these operations (e.g., exclusion of grazing) have promoted the development of unaltered wetlands, which are rare in California.

Mitigation Measure 7.4.4: The impacts of the proposed action will be mitigated as set forth under Impact 7.2.10. Impacts to wetlands by other projects within the cumulative impact study areas cannot be mitigated by DOE or UC.

5.1.8 AIR QUALITY

The existing ambient air quality and emissions estimates of pollutants associated with the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore are discussed in Section 4 of this document. The types of pollutants considered in this EIS/EIR are those historically regulated by federal, state, and local air pollution agencies. These pollutants are typically categorized as follows: criteria pollutants regulated through National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and lead) and various permitting processes for sources that could emit or contribute to the formation of these chemicals in the ambient air; hazardous air pollutants regulated under the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (i.e., asbestos, beryllium, mercury, vinyl chloride, benzene, radionuclides, and lead); and toxic air contaminants (TAC), primarily regulated at this time through state laws such as the California Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (AB2588) and Assembly Bill 1807, the Tanner Act. Criteria pollutants may be emitted from a variety of sources including boilers, furnaces, and vehicles. Toxic air contaminants and pollutants regulated under the NESHAP may be released from various activities at the laboratories including research, physical plant operations, and vehicles.

Because of the nature of research and because at this time precise designs are not available for buildings associated with the proposed action, the exact types and quantities of air pollutants that may be emitted as a result of implementation of the proposed action cannot be accurately predicted. Without specific designs, it is not possible to indicate accurately the increase in the number of emissions sources or the location of these sources for the proposed action. Due to the uncertainties in estimating the types and quantities of air pollutants that might be emitted under the proposed action and the locations of the emissions, it is conservatively assumed for purposes of this EIS/EIR that emissions would increase proportionally to the increase in gross square footage of the Laboratories and would be emitted uniformly among the proposed potential new air pollution emission sources.

Both the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution Control District have "No Net Increase" permitting programs in accordance with the 1988 California Clean Air Act. Two aspects of these programs apply to potential increases in emissions associated with the proposed action. The first would require Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for emissions of criteria pollutants (except ozone), precursor organic compounds (POC) or nonprecursor organic compounds if emissions exceed or are likely to exceed 5 lb on any one day or 365 lb per year; BACT requirements also apply to several hazardous air pollutants if emissions are likely to exceed levels specified in the rule. The second aspect of the "No Net Increase" programs addresses "offsets" (i.e., emission reductions) before the issuance of any required operating permits. Offset requirements would apply only if emissions of certain pollutants exceed specified threshold amounts. These pollutants include POC, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, PM10, and sulfur dioxide. For each of these pollutants, the programs establish limitations of 5 lb on any one day or a facility-wide cumulative increase, after April 5, 1991, of 1 ton per year. Offset reductions are always required at a rate greater than the proposed increase (e.g., 1.2 tons of reduction per 1 ton of increase). In general, offsets must be obtained in the area where increases from new or modified stationary sources are proposed; the districts have also established emissions "banks" from which offsets may be purchased.

LLNL Livermore Site

The proposed action, as described in Section 3, is assumed to result in an approximate 9 percent increase in LLNL Livermore site facilities (based upon projected increase in square footage of developed space) and a 20 percent increase in number of employees at the end of implementation of the proposed action. For this EIS/EIR, this projected increase was used to conservatively estimate air emissions from sources as described below.

Although for purposes of the EIS/EIR the square footage increase was used to conservatively estimate the increase in emissions, the actual changes in emissions due to the proposed action may be different. Several modifications to facilities and operations in the proposed action may tend to increase the air pollution emitted at the LLNL Livermore site. Other modifications to facilities and operations may decrease air pollutants; for example, the potential installation of low nitrogen dioxide burners on boilers, space heaters, and generators. Other actions which may reduce pollutants include solvent substitutions, alternative cleaning methods, and installation of improved abatement devices.

Criteria Pollutants

Based on projected 1992 estimates of material usage, such as fossil fuel and solvents, and application of emissions factors (EPA, 1982) established for equipment, such as commercial boilers, the LLNL Livermore site estimated emissions are 3.2 lb/day of particulate matter, 183 lb/day of volatile organic compounds, 1 lb/day of sulfur oxides, 118 lb/day of nitrogen oxides, and 24 lb/day of carbon monoxide. These emissions of criteria pollutants were obtained by applying EPA emission factors that estimate emissions based on the amount of fuel used and the type of combustion or emission source. The emission estimates for 1992 represent maximum short-term (i.e., hourly) emission rates, which would not occur for every hour during the year since the sources of the criteria air pollutants do no operate every hour throughout the year. Upon completion of the proposed action, it is assumed that new sources of criteria pollutants would increase emissions by 9 percent over the 5- to 10-year period, which amounts to 0.3 lb/day of particulate matter, 16 lb/day of volatile organic compounds, 0.1 lb/day of sulfur oxides, 10 lb/day of nitrogen oxides, and 2 lb/day of carbon monoxide.

Hazardous Air Pollutants

Radionuclides. Members of the public in the area surrounding the LLNL and SNL, Livermore^* may be exposed to low levels of radioactive materials that are released to the environment as a result of normal operations. The control procedures currently used to protect members of the public and to limit emissions of radionuclides into the environment will continue.

The collective dose to the public within a 50-mile radius of LLNL and SNL, Livermore was about 31 person-rem in 1990. The individual radiation doses to the public range from about 7×10^-6 (0.0000007) rem (0.007 mrem) per year at distances of several tens of miles from the two laboratories to 2.5×10^-4 (0.00025) rem (0.25 mrem) per year at the northeast fenceline. These calculated doses are small compared with the background radiation dose of 0.3 rem (300 mrem) per year and are well within DOE guidelines for protection of the public and the EPA annual dose limit of 0.01 rem (10 mrem) for airborne releases under the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 C.F.R. 61). They are also lower than the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements negligible individual risk level of 0.001 rem (1 mrem) per year.

Currently Building 331, the Hydrogen Research Facility, has an administrative limit for tritium of 300 g and an inventory of less than 20 g. Under the proposed action, the administrative limit would be reduced from 300 g to 5 g and the inventory reduced accordingly. A portion of the tritium operations in Building 331 may be moved to Building 298, the Fusion Target Fabrication Facility, and to Building 391, the Inertial Confinement Fusion Facility, known as the NOVA-Upgrade/National Ignition Facility. In this event, the three buildings would have a combined administrative limit of 10 g with no more than 5 g in any one building. For these facilities, the administrative limit would therefore be reduced from 300 g in one facility (Building 331) to a total of 10 g in three facilities (Buildings 298, 331, and 391). These changes would reduce the releases of radioactive material into the environment, but the reduction would not necessarily be directly proportional to the reduction in the administrative limits. The releases and the resultant impacts depend on the amount of tritium being handled in specific operations, the nature of the operations, and the physical and chemical form of the tritium. LLNL has estimated that emissions may be reduced by a factor of 2 to 5.

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.

The administrative limits for radionuclides other than tritium and plutonium will not be changed under the proposed action. Furthermore, there are no reported releases of radionuclides, other than tritium, that affect the level of radiation exposure of members of the public.

Beryllium. Beryllium is a nonradioactive material regulated by the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) that is monitored at the LLNL Livermore site. Beryllium is also regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

The average monthly concentrations of airborne beryllium at the LLNL Livermore site perimeter for the last 5 years are less than 0.58 percent of the BAAQMD standard, which is equivalent to NESHAP, of 0.01 mg/m³. Under the proposed action, the beryllium emissions are assumed to increase by approximately 9 percent over the EIS/EIR period. However, no increase is expected in the airborne beryllium concentration at the perimeter because the contribution from the LLNL Livermore site is indistinguishable from beryllium occurring in ambient dust.

Toxic Air Contaminants

Based on 1990 records of material usage and application of standardized emission factors (EPA, 1982), the LLNL Livermore site estimated emissions of toxic air contaminants were adjusted for interim square footage growth and rebaselined for FY 1992; they are presented in Table 5.1.8-1. Under the proposed action, toxic air contaminant emissions are assumed to increase by approximately 9 percent by the end of the planned project. The quantities of toxic air contaminants projected as emissions due to a 9 percent projected increase in facilities due to the proposed action are also shown in Table 5.1.8-1.

LLNL Site 300

The proposed action, as described in Section 3, is projected to result in an approximately 9 percent increase in LLNL Site 300 facilities (based upon a projected increase in square footage of developed space) at the end of the next 5- to 10-year planning period for purposes of the proposed actions. For purposes of this EIS/EIR, this projected growth was used to conservatively estimate the air emissions described below.

Criteria Pollutants

Based on projected 1992 estimates of material usage such as fossil fuel commercial boilers, LLNL Site 300 estimated emissions (EPA, 1982) are 5 lb/day of particulate matter, 14 lb/day of volatile organic compounds, 3 lb/day of sulfur oxides, 52 lb/day of nitrogen oxides, and 11 lb/day of carbon monoxide. These criteria pollutant emission estimates were obtained by applying EPA emission factors that estimate emission rates based on fuel use and the type of combustion or emission sources. These emission estimates represent maximum short-term (i.e., hourly) emission rates, which would not occur every day throughout the year. Under the proposed action, the criteria pollutants generated from stationary sources are assumed to increase 9 percent over the EIS period, which amounts to 0.45 lb/day of particulate matter, 1.3 lb/day of volatile organic compounds, 0.27 lb/day of sulfur oxides, 4.7 lb/day of nitrogen oxides, and 1 lb/day of carbon monoxide.

Hazardous Air Pollutants

Radionuclide. The administrative limits for radionuclides other than tritium will not be changed under the proposed action. Tritium use will resume at the firing tables with an administrative limit of 20 mg.

Beryllium. Some experiments performed at the firing tables (Buildings 801, 850, and 851) at LLNL Site 300 release beryllium. Although operations at LLNL Site 300 are not subject to NESHAP, the onsite results from ambient monitoring are compared to Bay Area Air Quality Management District standards for this EIS/EIR. Ambient monitoring at the Tracy, California Fire Station, and at seven other locations onsite, indicates that air quality levels are less than 0.52 percent of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District standard. For the purposes of this EIS/EIR, it is conservatively assumed that air emissions of beryllium would increase proportionally with the projected increase in facilities. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, beryllium emissions could increase 9 percent over the EIS/EIR period. The proposed action includes containment (enclosure) of a firing table, which if constructed would reduce release of radioactive material and beryllium to the environment.

Toxic Air Contaminants

The amounts of toxic air contaminants emitted at LLNL Site 300 are available for all emissions sources except the Iron Horse (LLNL, 1990b). Toxic air contaminant emissions estimates for the Iron Horse will be developed after performing emission testing approved by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. Assuming, for the purposes of this EIS/EIR, that toxic air contaminant emissions would increase proportionally with the projected increase in facilities, toxic air contaminant emissions would increase by approximately 9 percent from current levels. The toxic air contaminant emissions due to the proposed action at Site 300 are presented in Table 5.1.8-2.

SNL, Livermore

The proposed action, as described in Section 3, would result in an approximate 6 percent increase in SNL, Livermore facilities (based upon projected increase in square footage of developed space) over the next 5 to 10 years. For purposes of this EIS/EIR, the projected growth was used to estimate criteria pollutants, hazardous air pollutants, and toxic air contaminants as described below.

Criteria Pollutants

Based on projected 1992 estimates of fossil fuel usage in boilers and emission factors (EPA, 1982) for commercial boilers, SNL, Livermore generated and emitted 0.35 lb/day of particulate matter, 14.1 lb/day of volatile organic compounds, 0.01 lb/day of sulfur oxides, 18.7 lb/day of nitrogen oxides, and 2.4 lb/day of carbon monoxide. These criteria pollutant emission estimates were obtained by applying EPA emission factors that estimate emission rates based on fuel use and the type of combustion or emission sources. These emission estimates represent maximum short-term (i.e., hourly) emission rates, which would not occur every day throughout the year. Under the proposed action, the criteria pollutants generated from stationary sources are assumed to increase 6 percent over the EIS period, which amounts to 0.02 lb/day of particulate matter, 0.85 lb/day of volatile organic compounds, 0.001 lb/day of sulfur oxides, 1.12 lb/day of nitrogen oxides, and 0.14 lb/day of carbon monoxide.

It should be noted that for purposes of the EIS/EIR and conformance with CEQA, since the project is located in a nonattainment area for ozone and PM10, any air pollutant emissions associated with the project and contributing to the nonattainment status would be considered significant.

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

To assess the ambient air quality impact from the proposed action at the LLNL Livermore site, the air pollutant concentrations from the air quality dispersion modeling for the existing or baseline operations were linearly increased by 9 percent, reflecting a 9 percent increase in gross square footage associated with complete implementation of the proposed action. Stationary sources of air emission for the existing or baseline operations such as stacks were modeled as point sources, using the EPA-approved Industrial Source Complex Short-Term (ISCST) air quality dispersion model (EPA, 1987). Modeling was based on the onsite meteorological data from the LLNL Livermore site and Site 300 for the 4-year period 1986 through 1989 (LLNL, 1991a). The results of modeling the baseline operations provided estimates of ambient concentrations, which were then linearly increased by 9 percent to represent the ambient concentrations due to the proposed action. The estimated ambient criteria air pollutant concentrations for the proposed action are presented in Table 5.1.8-4.

Impacts of mobile sources of air emission, such as cars and trucks, due to the proposed action were estimated by proportionally increasing the ambient impacts from 1991 traffic conditions. The estimated carbon monoxide ambient concentrations for 1991 conditions, obtained from air quality modeling with Mobile 4 emission factors (EPA, 1990) and CAL3QHC (CARB, 1987), were increased by 20 percent to reflect a 20 percent increase in the LLNL Livermore site employee and related traffic volume.

Impact 8.1.1 Growth at the LLNL Livermore site would result in short-term impacts due to construction activities. This is a significant and unavoidable impact.

Short-term impacts relating to particulate (fugitive dust) emissions may occur from construction activities associated with the proposed action. Construction-related emissions would include dust generated from earth moving, excavation, and grading, and exhaust emissions from powered construction equipment and motor vehicles. Additionally, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) would be emitted from oil-based architectural coatings, paints, and asphalt used in construction. Volatile organic compounds are a precursor of ozone, for which the Bay Area is in nonattainment; therefore, even this temporary incremental increase in volatile organic compounds is a significant and unavoidable impact.

Exhaust emissions during construction would result from vehicular traffic generated by construction activities and from construction equipment and machinery. Emission levels for construction activities would vary with the type of equipment, duration of use, operation schedules, and number of construction workers. Exhaust emissions from construction activities would include NOx, a precursor to ozone formation. These impacts are temporary and localized to the area of construction, and therefore less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 8.1.1: General construction practices at the LLNL Livermore site, including contract specifications, would require that fugitive emissions be reduced by means such as water spraying of roads and the wheels and lower portions of construction vehicles and covering exposed piles of excavated material.

Impact 8.1.2 Assumed growth at the LLNL Livermore site under the proposed action would result in an increase of criteria pollutant emissions. This is a significant and unavoidable impact.

The estimated highest criteria pollutant concentrations from the proposed action at the LLNL Livermore site are presented in Table 5.1.8-4. This table also includes representative ambient background concentrations for these pollutants, as measured by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for the Livermore area, as well as corresponding state and federal ambient air quality standards. As shown in the table, none of the predicted criteria air pollutant concentrations for the proposed action, when combined with existing background pollutant levels, would cause or substantially contribute to existing or new violations of air quality standards. However, the San Francisco Bay Area air basin is a nonattainment area for ozone and PM10. Nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compound emissions are precursors for ozone formation.

Although the potential increases in nitrogen dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulate emissions from the proposed action at the LLNL Livermore site are individually small, they contribute to the nonattainment status of the air basin for ozone and PM10 standards, so the impact is considered a significant adverse impact.

Although the following mitigation measure would reduce projected increases in emissions, there would still be an increase in emissions in a nonattainment area; thus, for the purposes of this document this is a significant and unavoidable impact.

Mitigation Measure 8.1.2: On a project-specific basis, the LLNL Livermore site will evaluate the feasibility of designing buildings to minimize the contribution of criteria pollutants to the offsite ambient concentrations.

Impact 8.1.3 Assumed growth at the LLNL Livermore site under the proposed action would result in an increase of beryllium emissions. This is a less than significant impact.

For the purposes of this impact, it is assumed that beryllium emissions may increase under the proposed action by 9 percent. A 9 percent increase in beryllium emissions from current levels would still be below the Bay Area Air Quality Management District standards for beryllium. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 8.1.4 Assumed growth at the LLNL Livermore site under the proposed action would result in potential increases of toxic air contaminants. This is a less than significant impact.

For the purposes of this EIS/EIR, assuming potential emissions of toxic air contaminants are proportional to growth, the estimated highest ambient concentration predicted by the ISCST dispersion model for toxic air contaminant emissions under the provisions of AB2588 for baseline conditions was adjusted to account for a 9 percent increase in toxic air contaminant emissions under the proposed action. The carcinogenic compounds represented a risk of approximately 0.3 cancer fatalities in 1 million, and the noncarcinogenic compounds represented a hazard index of 0.089 and 0.42 for chronic and acute exposures, respectively. All these values are well below the California Air Resources Board threshold level and are, therefore, considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 8.1.5 Assumed growth at the LLNL Livermore site under the proposed action would result in an increase in carbon monoxide emissions from mobile sources. This is a less than significant impact.

Under the proposed action, assuming a 20 percent increase in the number of LLNL employees and in related traffic volume, and ignoring institutional controls on vehicular traffic such as carpooling and incentive programs for ridesharing in the Livermore Valley, a maximum 1-hour carbon monoxide concentration of 4 ppm at the intersection of Vasco Road and East Avenue is estimated to occur. This represents 15 percent of the 1-hour ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide imposed by the California Air Resources Board and does not cause or contribute to a violation of AAQS standards; this increase, therefore, is considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted for this impact.

As discussed in section 4.10, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is currently reassessing the areas designated as nonattainment. Should the area be classified as nonattainment for carbon monoxide in the future, LLNL would consider the potential impact significant and unavoidable, but would continue to implement transportation control measures to reduce the contribution of carbon monoxide.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 8.1.6 Assumed growth at the LLNL Livermore site under the proposed action would result in an increase in nitrogen dioxide emissions from mobile sources. This is a significant and unavoidable impact.

The increase in traffic volume related to the proposed action would cause an increase in nitrogen dioxide emissions. Since the San Francisco Bay Area basin is a nonattainment area for ozone, and nitrogen dioxide is a precursor of ozone formation, any increase in nitrogen dioxide emissions would contribute to nonattainment conditions. It is therefore considered a significant and unavoidable impact.

To mitigate the contribution of nitrogen dioxide emissions from the proposed action to an impact on the attainment of ozone standards, the following measure would be implemented.

Mitigation Measure 8.1.6: Continue the existing LLNL programs to enhance, to the extent feasible, Transportation System Management programs that would revitalize and expand the vanpooling and ridesharing programs in an organized effort to reduce vehicle use and associated air emissions.

Impact 8.1.7 The reduction in the administrative limit for tritium in Building 331 will be greater than the increase in the administrative limits for tritium in Building 298 and 391. The sum of the administrative limits for tritium in the three buildings will decrease from 300 g in Building 331 to a total of no more than 10 g in three buildings (331, 298, 391). The reduction in the level of tritium operations would decrease releases of tritium into the environment. This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial.

Currently Building 331, the Hydrogen Research Facility, has an administrative limit for tritium of 300 g and an inventory of less than 20 g. Under the proposed action, the administrative limit for Building 331 would be reduced from 300 g to 5 g and the inventory reduced accordingly. A portion of the tritium operations in Building 331 may be moved to Building 298, the Fusion Target Fabrication Facility, and to Building 391, the Inertial Confinement Fusion Facility, known as the NOVA-Upgrade/National Ignition Facility. In this event, the three buildings would have a combined administrative limit of 10 g with no more than 5 g in any one building. For these facilities, the administrative limit would therefore be reduced from 300 g in one facility (Building 331) to 10 g total in three facilities (Buildings 298, 331, and 391.) This would reduce the release of tritium to the environment and the resulting radiation doses to the public. LLNL has estimated that the reduction would be by a factor of 2 to 5 based on the amount of tritium that would be handled in specific operations, the nature of the operations, and the physical and chemical form of the tritium.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 8.2.1 Assumed growth at LLNL Site 300 under the proposed action would result in short-term impacts due to construction activities. This is a significant and unavoidable impact.

Short-term impacts relating to particulate (fugitive dust) emissions may occur from construction activities associated with the proposed action. Construction-related emissions would include dust generated from earth moving, excavation, and grading, and exhaust emissions from powered construction equipment and motor vehicles. Additionally, volatile organic compounds would be emitted from oil-based architectural coatings, paints, and asphalt used in construction. Volatile organic compounds are a precursor of ozone, for which the area is in nonattainment.

Mitigation Measure 8.2.1: General construction practices at LLNL Livermore Site 300, including contract specifications, would require that fugitive emissions be reduced by means such as water spraying of roads and the wheels and lower portions of construction vehicles and covering exposed piles of excavated material.

Impact 8.2.2 Construction of the Contained Firing Facility at LLNL Site 300 under the proposed action would result in decreased beryllium emissions from Building 801. This is a beneficial impact.

Beryllium emissions may decrease under the proposed action if a contained firing facility, which would restrict air emissions, is constructed. Since plans for such a facility are not yet definitive, the amount of beryllium emission reduction associated with the facility is speculative at this time. However, since the existing beryllium ambient air quality levels are currently less than the Bay Area Air Quality Management District standards used for comparison, and emissions would be further reduced by the proposed actions, this is a beneficial impact.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 8.2.3 Growth at LLNL Site 300 would result in an increase in criteria pollutant emissions. This is a significant and unavoidable impact.

The estimated highest criteria pollutant concentrations under the proposed action at LLNL Site 300 are presented in Table 5.1.8-4. These concentrations were obtained using the same methodology used at the LLNL Livermore site; that is, linearly increasing the ambient criteria pollutant concentrations obtained by modeling the emissions sources of the baseline operations. As shown in the table, none of the predicted criteria air pollutant concentrations, when combined with background pollutant levels, would cause or substantially contribute to existing or new violations of air quality standards. However, nitrogen dioxide, volatile organic compound, and PM10 emissions from LLNL Site 300 are a significant impact since the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is a nonattainment area for ozone and PM10. Although mitigation measures would reduce the nitrogen dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and PM10 emissions, there would still be an increase in a nonattainment area. This is a significant and unavoidable adverse impact.

Mitigation Measure 8.2.3: Mitigation measures for nitrogen dioxide, volatile organic compound, and PM10 emissions for the LLNL Livermore site identified in Mitigation Measure 8.1.2 would also be employed at LLNL Site 300.

Impact 8.2.4 The Contained Firing Facility at LLNL Site 300 would essentially eliminate dispersion of uranium and any other constituent of explosive devices into the environment from Building 801. This is a less than significant impact and may be a beneficial impact.

Containment of the firing tables would essentially eliminate dispersion of uranium and other constituents into the environment from this firing table.

Mitigation Measure: This is a beneficial impact and would require no mitigation.

Impact 8.2.5 Construction of the Explosives Waste Treatment Facility at LLNL Site 300 under the proposed action would result in the same or less air emissions. This is a less than significant impact.

No change would be expected from this project; therefore, this is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 8.2.6 Resumed use of a small amount of tritium at the LLNL Site 300 firing tables would increase the potential release of radioactivity into the atmosphere. The releases would be limited and would comply with NESHAP. This is a less than significant impact.

Tritium use is planned to be resumed at the LLNL Site 300 firing tables with an administrative limit of 20 mg (about 200 Ci). Radiation releases would be controlled to be as low as reasonably achievable and comply with regulatory limits. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 8.3.1 The administrative limit for tritium at the Tritium Research Laboratory will be reduced from 50 g to zero over the next 10 years and the building will be converted to alternative uses. This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial.

This would reduce tritium emissions to zero.

Mitigation Measure: This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial; no mitigation would be required.

Impact 8.3.2 Assumed growth at SNL, Livermore under the proposed action would result in short-term impacts due to construction activities. This is a less than significant impact.

Particulate emissions may occur due to construction activities associated with the proposed action at SNL, Livermore. These impacts are short-term, temporary, and localized. This impact is, therefore, less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 8.3.2: SNL, Livermore would require general construction practices to minimize generation of fugitive dust by water spray application.

Impact 8.3.3 Assumed growth at SNL, Livermore under the proposed action would result in an increase in criteria pollutant emissions.

The estimated highest criteria pollutant concentrations under the proposed action at SNL, Livermore are presented in Table 5.1.8-3. These concentrations were estimated using the same methodology used at the LLNL Livermore site. As shown in the table, none of the predicted criteria air pollutant concentrations, when combined with existing background pollutant levels, would cause or substantially contribute to existing or new violations of air quality standards. These impacts are therefore considered less than significant.

The San Francisco Bay Area air basin is a nonattainment area for ozone and PM10. Nitrogen dioxide, volatile organic compound, and PM10 emissions are individually small and contribute to an ozone and PM10 nonattainment condition. These impacts are, therefore, considered potentially significant and unavoidably adverse.

Mitigation Measure 8.3.3: The mitigation measures discussed for nitrogen dioxide, volatile organic compound, and PM10 emissions from the LLNL Livermore site would also be employed at SNL, Livermore.

Impact 8.3.4 Assumed growth at SNL, Livermore under the proposed action would result in an increase of toxic air contaminants. This is a less than significant impact.

The estimated emission rates of the proposed action at SNL, Livermore are 6 percent of the current toxic air contaminants emission rates. The current toxic air contaminants emission rates were considered by the BAAQMD to be at a level that does not require a health risk assessment and therefore does not pose an unacceptable risk to the surrounding public. Since the toxic air contaminants emissions from the proposed action are 6 percent of the current toxic air contaminants emissions they are also considered to be below the level which could pose an unacceptable risk. Therefore the impact is considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 8.3.5 Decontamination and decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory will result in tritium air emissions during the decontamination activities. This is a less than significant impact.

During the decommissioning and decontamination activities, outgassing of glovebox and piping may occur as they are disconnected in preparation for shipment to licensed disposal facilities. Based on a conservative estimate of 5000 to 10,000 curies of residual tritium in the various equipment, tritium outgassing may be as much as 2500 Ci. This averages to 800 Ci/year for the 3-year decommissioning operations, compared to the approximately 300 Ci/year now being released by this facility (see section 4.10.2 and Appendix C).

Thus, this level of tritium emission is within the same order of magnitude as the normal operating stack releases of the Tritium Research Laboartory. Furthermore, as a matter of DOE and Laboratory policy, these emissions are kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), which would be supported by extensive personnel training, use of state-of-the-art technology, and utilization of experience from other DOE tritium facility decommissioning operations. As such, this would be determined to be a short-term and less than significant impact.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE, LLNL SITE 300, AND SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 8.4.1 Assumed growth under the proposed action at the Laboratories and surrounding communities would increase criteria pollutant emissions. This is a significant and unavoidable impact.

The development of approved and proposed projects near the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore, as identified in section 4.2.3, would result in increased criteria air pollutants due to stationary and mobile sources. While the carbon monoxide standards are not expected to be exceeded from the cumulative impacts, cumulative growth would result in the emission of primary pollutants such as NOx and VOCs that are precursors to ozone. Since the Livermore area exceeds federal and state ozone standards, any increase in pollutants that could lead to the formation of ozone is considered a potentially significant and unavoidable adverse impact.

Mitigation Measure: None available. Mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant are beyond the authority of DOE and UC.

Impact 8.4.2 Radiation exposures to the public from activities at LLNL and SNL, Livermore would decrease under the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial.

Releases of radionuclides into the environment from the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore would decrease from current levels and the resulting radiation doses to members of the public would remain well below the limits required by NESHAP (40 C.F.R. Part 61).

Currently, there are no major facilities projected to be built in the region that would be expected to release radionuclides into the environment. If any such facilities were built, they would have to comply with the release limits specified by the EPA, Cal EPA, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other regulatory authorities. Because the release limits are set to protect public health and because any new facility would have to comply with these limits to operate, the cumulative radiation exposure to the surrounding public is considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 8.4.3 Assumed growth under the proposed action at the Laboratories and the surrounding communities would increase toxic air contaminants. This is a less than significant impact.

The development of approved and proposed projects near the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore would result in increased toxic air contaminants due to stationary sources. Although the specific development plans that would lead to increases in toxic air contaminants due to the proposed projects are not known at the time of this EIS/EIR, any increases in toxic air contaminant emission would be regulated under AB2588. Since this regulation requires that the human health risk from toxic air contaminant emissions be at acceptable levels, the increase in toxic air contaminant emissions due to approved and proposed projects is considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Table 5.1.8-1 Annual Emissions Estimates of Toxic Air Contaminants for Baseline Conditions and Proposed Action LLNL Livermore Site

Contaminant	Baseline Condition Annual Amount (lb/year)	Assumed Increase over the EIS Period Due to Proposed Action (lb increase by tenth year)
Chlorine	675	61
Ethylene glycol ethyl ether acetate	212	19
Fluorocarbons	28,770	2,589
Glycol ethers (other)	24	2
Hydrogen fluoride	<0.1	0.01
Methanol	1,230	111
Toluene	274	25
1,1,1-Trichloroethane	16,270	1,464
Xylenes	117	11
Benzene	196	18
Carbon tetrachloride	493	44
Chloroform	633	57
Dioxane (1,4-)	161	14
Ethylene dichloride	<1	0.1
Formaldehyde	35	3
Methylene chloride	738	66
Trichloroethylene	728	66

Table 5.1.8-2 Annual Emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants for Baseline Conditions and the Proposed Action LLNL Site 300

Contaminant	Projected 1992 Baseline Condition Annual Amount (lb/year)	Assumed Increase over the EIS Period Due to Proposed Action (lb increase by tenth year)
5 Boilers/Diesel Fuel
Arsenic	0.43	0.039
Beryllium	0.026	0.002
Cadmium	0.11	0.010
Chromium	0.014	0.001
Copper	2.9	0.261
Formaldehyde	4.2	0.378
Lead	0.092	0.008
Magnesium	0.27	0.024
Mercury	0.031	0.003
Nickel	1.8	0.162
PAH	0.23	0.021
Fuel Dispensers Gasoline
Dispensers	110.7	9.963
Tank Loading	968.5	87.165
Spray Booths
Glycol Ethers	117	10.530
Toluene	40	3.600
Xylene	11	0.990
High Explosive Detonation 801, 850, 851
Ammonia	20.9	1.881
Benzene	0.18	0.016
HCL	7.3	0.657
HCN	3.9	0.351
HF	26.5	2.385
PAH	0.000003	0.000
Toluene	0.3	0.027
High Explosive Metals
Beryllium	0.31	0.028
Nickel	0.42	0.038
High Explosive Waste
Cooling Tower		0.000
Chloroform	0.12	0.011
Sodium Hydroxide	13.3	1.197
Limited Chemistry Lab
Ethylene Dichloride	1	0.090
Fluorocarbons	3.9	0.351
Methlyene Chloride	55	4.950
Toluene	0.36	0.032
Drinking Water Chlorination
Chlorine Hydroxide	15	1.350
Cold Cleaning		0.000
Freon 113	721	64.890
Vapor Extraction System
Trichloroethylene	8	0.720
Refrigerants		0.000
R12	145	13.050
R13	80	7.200
R22	375	33.750
R113	66	5.940
R502	100	9.000
R503	70	6.300
Automotive Parts Cleaning
Cresol	1.8	0.162
Methylene Chloride	4.8	0.432
Linear Accelerator X-Ray Equipment
R12	580	52.200

Table 5.1.8-3 Annual Emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants for Baseline Conditions and Proposed Action SNL, Livermore Site

Contaminant	Projected 1992 Annual Amount (lb)	Assumed Increase by Tenth Year (lb)
Trichloroethane	1765	88.3
Gasoline Vapors	170	8.5
Chlorofluorocarbons	300	15.0

Table 5.1.8-4 Predicted Highest Ambient Pollutant Concentration (mg/m3) Due to Atmospheric Releases of Criteria Pollutants from Stationary Sources of the Proposed Action

Pollutant	Average Period	Pollutant Concentration (mg/m³)			Monitored Background Concentration^a (mg/m³)	AAQS^b (mg/m³)
Pollutant	Average Period	LLNL Livermore Site	LLNL Site 300	SNL, Livermore	Monitored Background Concentration^a (mg/m³)	California	National
Carbon monoxide	1 Hour	1.13	4.59	1.03	6057	22,800	40,000
Carbon monoxide	8 Hour	0.379	0.806	0.205	N/A	10,000	10,000
Nitrogen dioxide	1 Hour	2.02	1.07	0.030	264	470	N/A
Nitrogen dioxide	Annual	0.202	0.107	0.003	43.4	N/A	100
Particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM10)	24 Hour	0.024	0.136	0.067	108	50	150
Particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM10)	Annual	0.005	0.009	0.008	37.4	30	50
Sulfur dioxide	3 Hour	0.019	0.615	0.007	N/A	N/A	1300
	24 Hour	0.005	0.102	0.001	N/A	130	365
	Annual	0.001	0.007	0.0002	N/A	N/A	80

^a California Air Resources Board, 1985–1989, Air Quality Summary for the Livermore Station.
^b AAQS= Ambient Air Quality Standard (40 Fed. Reg. section 50, 1990).
N/A = Not available.

5.1.9 WATER

This section describes impacts to surface water and ground water resources from the proposed action. Current operations potentially impacting surface water and ground water quality are discussed in sections 4.11 and 4.17. Hydrologic impacts to surface water and ground water bodies from the proposed action including ground water recharge, flooding, and decreases in ground water level are presented below.

LLNL Livermore Site

The LLNL Livermore site is located at the eastern end of the Livermore Valley ground water basin. Recharge to the basin is largely from arroyos that originate in the foothills, including Arroyo Seco and Arroyo Las Positas, which cross the LLNL Livermore site. Arroyo Las Positas is the only potential source of flooding onsite. Under the proposed action, LLNL Livermore site gross square footage is projected to increase by 9 percent.

LLNL Site 300

LLNL Site 300 is located in the eastern Altamont Hills in the San Joaquin ground water basin. Surface water bodies inventoried include intermittent streams that drain to Corral Hollow Creek, which in turn flows eastward into the San Joaquin Valley. The Altamont Hills represent a recharge area for the San Joaquin ground water basin. Three drainages, Oasis/Draney, Elk, and Middle, serve as pathways for storm water runoff and are the main drainages, along with Corral Hollow Creek, with potential for flooding. Gross square footage at LLNL Site 300 is projected to increase by 9 percent under the proposed action.

SNL, Livermore

SNL, Livermore is located near the eastern end of the Livermore Valley ground water basin. All drainages from SNL, Livermore flow into Arroyo Seco, a major source of recharge for the ground water basin. Various other sources of ground water recharge at SNL, Livermore include landscape irrigation and a recharge pond constructed for LLNL's ground water remediation activities. Arroyo Seco is the only potential source for flooding at SNL, Livermore. Gross square footage at SNL, Livermore facilities is projected to increase by 6 percent under the proposed action.

Standards of Significance

A project is considered to have a significant adverse hydrologic impact if it:

Substantially degrades water quality by exceeding applicable water quality standards;
Contaminates a public water supply;
Substantially degrades or depletes ground water resources;
Interferes substantially with ground water recharge;
Causes substantial flooding, erosion, or siltation; or
Locates facilities in flood-prone areas.

Seasonal rainfall, together with the additional paving included under the proposed action, may increase runoff flows in local drainage channels. Although such increased flows would likely be minor, they could result in increased intermittent flow for some local streams, including Arroyo Seco and Arroyo Las Positas.

Documents relating to urban water management were reviewed to assess compatibility of the proposed action with anticipated ground water use.

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 9.1.1 As a result of the proposed action, a 9 percent increase in gross square footage of developed space is assumed, which may result in impacts to surface water runoff and ground water recharge. This is a less than significant impact.

An increase in surface water runoff and a reduction in the amount of recharge to the local ground water aquifer would occur as a result of the increase in impermeable surface under the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact. Because LLNL Livermore site soils are highly permeable and abundant uncovered acreage remains for ground water recharge, the impact of the reduction in recharge surface area under the proposed action would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 9.2.1 As a result of the proposed action, a 9 percent increase in gross square footage of developed space is assumed, which may result in impacts to surface water runoff and ground water recharge. This is a less than significant impact.

None of the proposed action projects would contribute significant amounts of surface water runoff to cause substantial flooding. Due to the high infiltration rates and lack of appreciable flood plains at LLNL Site 300, hydrologic impacts from the proposed action are less than significant. At LLNL Site 300, elimination of discharges from three cooling towers would reduce surface water runoff. This action, however, would not substantially reduce surface water runoff.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 9.3.1 As a result of the proposed action, a 6 percent increase in gross square footage of developed space is assumed, which may result in impacts to surface and ground water quality. This is a less than significant impact.

Based on the analyses conducted and the standards of significance, no significant adverse impacts to surface water bodies or ground water recharge are expected from reduced recharge or increased surface water runoff associated with the projected 6 percent increase under the proposed action.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 9.4.1 Cumulative impacts from the proposed action and other regional development may impact surface and ground water quality. This is a less than significant impact.

The cumulative impact study area includes the eastern Livermore Valley ground water basin and surface water bodies within the basin. Increased development at the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore would further reduce ground water recharge areas. Development would also increase storm water runoff to Arroyo Las Positas and Arroyo Seco. In the absence of specific regional development information, it is not possible to quantify the potential runoff increases or actual contaminants in storm water runoff. However, because of the high infiltration rates within the arroyos and abundant remaining surface area for ground water recharge, and because the majority of development at the Laboratories would occur on built-up space that already includes a substantial amount of impervious surface, no significant adverse cumulative impacts from the combined proposed action projects at the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore are anticipated.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 9.4.2 Cumulative impacts from the proposed action and other regional development may impact surface and ground water quality. This is a less than significant impact.

The cumulative impacts study area is LLNL Site 300 and related drainages, and the San Joaquin Valley ground water basin. Cumulative impacts associated with the proposed action and other offsite development or recharge programs are considered less than significant due to high infiltration rates of local soils and abundant remaining surface area for ground water recharge. The overall increase in stormwater runoff from regional development in the LLNL Site 300 area would depend on a variety of factors including inherent soil permeability, the total amount of impervious surfacing (e.g., paving), intensity of development, slope, and other characteristics. In the absence of specific regional development information, it is not possible to quantify the potential runoff increases or actual contaminants in stormwater runoff. No diversions of major drainages, destruction of springs, nor removal of any surface water bodies are proposed in the western San Joaquin Valley ground water basin or at LLNL Site 300.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

5.1.10 NOISE

LLNL Livermore Site

Existing noise sources at the LLNL Livermore site include vehicular traffic; stationary noise sources such as heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment; and construction activities. In addition, noise is generated by aircraft used by LLNL for transportation through both the Livermore Municipal Airport and the Tracy Municipal Airport. Under the proposed action, the nearest residences could experience a short-term increase in exterior noise levels as a result of increased construction activities. The nearest offsite noise-sensitive receptors from the LLNL Livermore site include residences east of Greenville Road, approximately 200 ft from the eastern boundary of the LLNL Livermore site, and residences west of Vasco Road, approximately 200 ft from the western boundary of the LLNL Livermore site. Aircraft noise associated with LLNL operations would not increase since no change in LLNL's use of air transportation would occur as part of the proposed action.

LLNL Site 300

Existing noise sources at LLNL Site 300 include vehicular traffic; heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment; construction activities; a pistol and rifle firing range; and high explosives testing. In addition, noise is generated by aircraft used by LLNL for transportation through both the Livermore Municipal Airport and the Tracy Municipal Airport. Under the proposed action, noise-sensitive receptors could experience a short-term increase in exterior noise levels from increased construction-related activities. Noise-sensitive receptors could experience changes in impulse-type noise levels due to proposed action projects: a reduction in noise associated with high explosives testing due to the use of a contained firing facility, and an increase in noise from operation of the Cheap Access to Orbit project. The nearest offsite noise-sensitive receptors include a single-family residence west of the LLNL Site 300 western boundary, less than 1 mile from the southwestern boundaries of the site (more than 2 miles from existing LLNL Site 300 facilities). Aircraft noise associated with LLNL operations would not increase since no change in LLNL's use of air transportation would occur as part of the proposed action.

SNL, Livermore

Existing noise sources at SNL, Livermore include vehicular traffic; heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment; construction activities; and a pistol and rifle firing range. In addition, noise is generated by aircraft used by SNL, Livermore for transportation through the Livermore Municipal Airport. Under the proposed action, a short-term increase in exterior noise levels could occur in nearby areas due to construction-related activities. The nearest offsite noise-sensitive receptor is a single-family residence between SNL, Livermore and Tesla Road, approximately 400 ft from the southern boundaries of the property and approximately 1000 ft from existing Laboratory facilities. Aircraft noise associated with SNL, Livermore operations would not increase since no change in SNL, Livermore's use of air transportation would occur as part of the proposed action.

Standards of Significance

A project is considered to have significant adverse noise impacts if it:

Substantially increases ambient noise levels for adjoining areas;
Conflicts with adopted environmental plans and goals;
Causes noise that would conflict with a local noise ordinance;
Exceeds state or local guidelines for long-term exposure, acceptable interior noise levels, and 24-hour average noise levels; or
Exceeds the peak impulse noise level limit of 126 dB in populated areas for high explosive testing at LLNL Site 300.

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 10.1.1 Increases in construction-related noise could occur intermittently near the LLNL Livermore site as a result of the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact.

The principal short-term noise impacts from the proposed action would occur during the construction activities. Construction noise represents a short-term and less than significant impact on ambient noise levels on and around the site over the entire period of construction. Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach relatively high levels. The EPA has found that the noisiest equipment at construction sites typically ranges from 88 A-weighted decibels (dBA) to 91 dBA at a distance of 50 ft. Typical operating cycles may involve 2 minutes of full power, followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower settings. Although noise ranges were found to be similar for all construction phases, the building phase tended to be less noisy. Noise levels vary from 79 dBA to 88 dBA at a distance of 50 ft during the building phase of construction.

Noise from localized sources (such as construction activities) typically diminishes by approximately 6 dBA with each doubling of distance between the source and the receptor. Outdoor receptors that have an uninterrupted view of a construction site and that are within 100 ft of the site would experience noise greater than 82 dBA when the noise level on the construction site exceeds 88 dBA. The nearest offsite noise-sensitive receptors include residences east of Greenville Road, approximately 200 ft from the eastern boundary of the LLNL Livermore site, and residences west of Vasco Road, approximately 200 ft from the western boundary of the LLNL Livermore site.

Construction activities associated with the proposed action could potentially cause a short-term annoyance to residential land uses in the surrounding area. However, most of these construction activities would be located inside the site boundary at 400 ft or more from the residential areas. (See Appendix A for locations of construction projects associated with the proposed action.) Thus, the closest residential areas could experience a noise level of approximately 70 dBA during construction phases. While activities at the LLNL Livermore site are not subject to local noise regulations, it is DOE and UC policy to cooperate with local agencies whenever feasible. Outside of the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites, noise regulations of the City of Livermore and County of Alameda would apply. These regulations do not establish noise standards for construction activities except to limit construction activities to daytime hours to reduce the level of potential annoyance. Because it is assumed that most of the construction activity associated with the proposed action would occur during daytime hours, potential annoyance associated with construction noise at the site would not conflict with local noise regulations and thus would be less than significant. Although construction noise impacts would be less than significant, the following mitigation measure would be implemented.

Mitigation Measure 10.1.1: Construction equipment and vehicles at the LLNL Livermore site would be properly muffled to reduce noise impacts.

Impact 10.1.2 Long-term increases in traffic-related noise levels in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site would occur as a result of the proposed action. These increases would be less than significant.

New facilities associated with the proposed action are primarily offices and laboratories. Such uses are not expected to produce significant noise generation that would affect noise-sensitive receptors at or near the LLNL Livermore site.

Potential noise impacts could occur from an increase in traffic associated with an increase in personnel at that site. The proposed action's contribution to community noise levels from traffic-related noise near all three sites is shown in Table 5.1.10-1. Noise data in the table are based on existing plus project-related traffic volumes, including the traffic increase associated with the proposed action.

As the table shows, noise levels near these three sites are expected to increase over existing levels with implementation of the proposed action. However, these noise level increases are, for the most part, negligible (0.7 dBA increase or smaller). These increases would not be audible and would not be regarded as significant, since the 65 dB acceptable outdoor level for residential areas, or Community Noise Equivalent Level contour, would fall up to approximately 10 ft outside the road right-of-way (assumed to be approximately 100 ft). Accordingly, potential impacts to community noise levels would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 10.2.1 Short-term increases in construction-related noise could occur near LLNL Site 300 as a result of the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact.

The LLNL Livermore site discussion of short-term construction noise is also applicable to LLNL Site 300. Offsite noise-sensitive receptors include the single-family residence less than 1 mile from the southwestern boundaries of the site and more than 2 miles from proposed construction projects at LLNL Site 300 (see Appendix A for locations of construction projects included as part of the proposed action). Any construction noise experienced at this residence would be less than significant due to its distance from the proposed construction sites at LLNL Site 300. Although construction noise impacts would be less than significant, the following mitigation measure would be implemented.

Mitigation Measure 10.2.1: Construction equipment and vehicles at LLNL Site 300 would be properly muffled to reduce noise impacts.

Impact 10.2.2 Long-term increases in noise from operations at LLNL Site 300 could result from the Cheap Access to Orbit project of the proposed action. This increase would be a less than significant impact.

The proposed Cheap Access to Orbit (CATO) project (formerly called Super-High-Altitude Research Project or SHARP) would introduce a new LLNL Site 300 noise source. A two-stage light gas gun, which will propel projectiles of nonexplosive light metals and polymers weighing up to 10 kg, is proposed. Peak impulse noise levels from the firing of the gun are estimated to be less than 120 dB at the site boundary and thus would not exceed the LLNL standard (DOE, 1991). Therefore, any offsite noise impacts from this new project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 10.2.2: LLNL's weather and noise monitoring program at LLNL Site 300 will continue to restrict operations when peak impulse noise levels are predicted to exceed 126 dB in populated areas. The results will be documented in LLNL's publicly available annual Environmental Report.

Impact 10.2.3 Long-term traffic-related noise levels along Corral Hollow Road would increase as a result of the proposed action. This impact would be less than significant.

Results of traffic-related noise modeling for Corral Hollow Road are included in Table 5.1.10-1. As shown in the table, noise levels along Corral Hollow Road are expected to increase by a small increment over existing levels due to increased traffic associated with the proposed action. However, these increases would be negligible when compared to existing conditions, and would not conflict with any local noise guideline or ordinance. Thus, the increase in noise would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 10.2.4 Noise-sensitive receptors surrounding LLNL Site 300 could experience a reduction in noise from high explosives testing. This is a beneficial impact.

The LLNL Site 300, Bunker 801, proposed contained firing facility is expected to reduce noise generated by high explosives testing at the bunker because detonations would occur inside the proposed structure and would be attenuated by it. Noise-sensitive receptors in the City of Tracy, as well as existing and future nearby residences, could benefit from the reduction in noise from high explosives tests from use of the new facility. However, the degree to which noise levels would be reduced cannot be quantified because specific information on the facility's noise attenuation capabilities is currently unavailable.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 10.3.1 Short-term increases in construction-related noise could occur near SNL, Livermore as a result of the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact.

The LLNL Livermore site discussion of short-term construction noise is also applicable to SNL, Livermore. The closest offsite noise-sensitive receptor includes the single-family residence between SNL, Livermore and Tesla Road, approximately 400 ft from the southern boundaries of the property, and approximately 800 ft from existing Laboratory facilities. Construction activities associated with the proposed action would be located 800 ft or more from these residences. Thus, the noise level at the closest residence could reach 64 dBA during construction phases. While activities at SNL, Livermore are not subject to local noise regulations, it is DOE policy to cooperate with local agencies whenever feasible, in this case the City of Livermore and County of Alameda. These agencies have not established noise standards for construction activities except to limit construction activities to daytime hours to reduce the level of potential annoyance. Because it is assumed that most of the construction activity associated with the proposed action would occur during daytime hours, potential annoyance associated with construction noise at the site would not conflict with local noise regulations and thus would be less than significant. Although construction noise impacts would be less than significant, the following mitigation measure would be implemented.

Mitigation Measure 10.3.1: Construction equipment and vehicles would be properly muffled to reduce noise impact.

Impact 10.3.2 Long-term increases in traffic-related noise levels in the vicinity of SNL, Livermore would occur as a result of the proposed action. These increases would be less than significant.

Potential noise impacts affecting areas adjacent to SNL, Livermore would be from the increased traffic associated with an increase in the number of employees at the site. Table 5.1.10-1 presents traffic-related noise levels along roadways near all three sites (see discussion of long-term noise impacts for the LLNL Livermore site). As shown on the table, no significant traffic-related noise level increases are expected from the proposed action when compared to existing conditions.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE

While they are distinct operations managed and operated by different contractors, for purposes of this discussion the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore are addressed together because of their proximity.

Impact 10.4.1 The proposed action would contribute a small increment to cumulatively significant roadway noise levels that are expected to occur in the future along some roads in the study area. This is a significant and unavoidable adverse impact.

The cumulative traffic noise study area includes roadways that receive most of the Laboratories-generated traffic. Results of noise modeling for the cumulative traffic condition, including traffic associated with the proposed action and future development in the vicinity, are presented in Table 5.1.10-2. Because the projected CNEL 50 ft from the centerline of the near travel lane on some modeled roadways is above the City of Livermore and County of Alameda standards for noise-sensitive uses, this is a significant and unavoidable impact because measures to reduce offsite traffic-related noise are not within the jurisdiction of DOE or UC.

Mitigation Measure 10.4.1: The contribution to noise levels by the proposed action will be reduced by Mitigation Measure 11.1.2. However, incremental noise impacts would not be completely eliminated. Measures to reduce cumulative roadway noise levels resulting from other projects are beyond the authority of DOE or UC to implement.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 10.4.2 The proposed action would contribute a small increment to cumulative, but less than significant, roadway noise levels that are expected to occur in the future along Corral Hollow Road. This would be a less than significant impact.

The cumulative traffic noise study area at LLNL Site 300 would primarily include Corral Hollow Road. Results of noise modeling for the cumulative traffic condition, including traffic associated with the proposed action and future development in the vicinity, are presented in Table 5.1.10-2. Because the projected CNEL 50 ft from the centerline of the near travel lane on Corral Hollow Road would not exceed the noise standards of San Joaquin and Alameda counties, cumulative traffic-related noise levels would be less than significant on Coral Hollow Road.

Table 5.1.10-1 Roadway Noise as a Result of the Proposed Action Compared to Existing Conditions

Roadway Segment	Estimated Distance from Roadway Centerline to CNEL (in ft)			Estimated CNEL 50 ft from Centerline of the Near Travel Lane (dBA)	Increase Over Existing Level (dBA)
Roadway Segment	70 CNEL	65	60		Increase Over Existing Level (dBA)
First Street, N. Mines Road to Las Positas Road	< 50	96	207	68.6	0.0
Vasco Road, I-580 to Patterson Pass Road	71	147	312	69.7	0.7
Vasco Road, Patterson Pass Road to East Avenue	58	116	246	68.2	0.5
Vasco Road, East Avenue to Tesla Road	< 50	< 50	60	60.5	0.3
Greenville Road, I-580 to Patterson Pass Road (4 lanes)	< 50	69	142	64.5	0.5
Greenville Road, I-580 to Patterson Pass Road (2 lanes)	< 50	< 50	78	62.2	0.5
Greenville Road, Patterson Pass Road to East Avenue	< 50	< 50	71	61.6	0.4
Greenville Road, East Avenue to Tesla Road	< 50	< 50	< 50	57.3	0.7
East Avenue, West of Buena Vista Avenue	57	117	250	68.7	0.3
East Avenue, Buena Vista Avenue to Vasco Road	< 50	102	216	67.8	0.7
East Avenue, Vasco Road to Greenville Road (4 lanes)	< 50	88	186	66.8	0.6
East Avenue, Vasco Road to Greenville Road (2 lanes)	< 50	57	123	65.1	0.6
North Mines Road, East Avenue to Patterson Pass Road	< 50	< 50	73	60.5	0.4
Patterson Pass Road, Vasco Road to Greenville Road	< 50	< 50	< 50	56.5	0.0
Tesla Road, Buena Vista Avenue to Vasco Road	< 50	< 50	79	62.3	0.2
Tesla Road, Vasco Road to Greenville Road	< 50	< 50	< 50	58.2	0.0
Corral Hollow Road, West of LLNL Site 300	< 50	< 50	< 50	52.9	0.3
Corral Hollow Road, East of LLNL Site 300	< 50	< 50	< 50	54.0	0.5

dBA = Decibel (A-weighted frequency). CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level.

Table 5.1.10-2 Future Roadway Noise as a Result of Cumulative Development Including the Proposed Action Compared to Existing Conditions

Roadway Segment	Estimated Distance from Roadway Centerline to CNEL (in ft)			Estimated CNEL 50 ft from Centerline of the Near Travel Lane (dBA)	Increase Over Existing Level (dBA)
Roadway Segment	70 CNEL	65 CNEL	60 CNEL		Increase Over Existing Level (dBA)
First Street, N. Mines Road to Las Positas Road	63	135	290	70.8	2.2
Vasco Road, I-580 to Patterson Pass Road	72	147	314	69.8	0.8
Vasco Road, Patterson Pass Road to East Avenue	61	123	261	68.5	0.8
Vasco Road, East Avenue to Tesla Road	< 50	< 50	86	62.8	2.6
Greenville Road, I-580 to Patterson Pass Road (4 lanes)	65	132	281	69.0	5.0
Greenville Road, I-580 to Patterson Pass Road (2 lanes)	< 50	73	156	66.7	5.0
Greenville Road, Patterson Pass Road to East Avenue	< 50	61	131	65.6	4.4
Greenville Road, East Avenue to Tesla Road	< 50	< 50	< 50	56.8	0.2
East Avenue, West of Buena Vista Avenue	< 50	103	219	67.8	- 0.6
East Avenue, Buena Vista Avenue to Vasco Road	< 50	97	206	67.4	0.3
East Avenue, Vasco Road to Greenville Road (4 lanes)	< 50	90	191	67.0	0.8
East Avenue, Vasco Road to Greenville Road (2 lanes)	< 50	59	126	65.3	0.8
North Mines Road, East Avenue to Patterson Pass Road	< 50	62	129	64.3	4.2
Patterson Pass Road, Vasco Road to Greenville Road	< 50	80	166	65.6	4.8
Tesla Road, Buena Vista Avenue to Vasco Road	< 50	< 50	98	63.7	1.6
Tesla Road, Vasco Road to Greenville Road	< 50	< 50	< 50	58.2	0.0
Corral Hollow Road, West of LLNL Site 300	< 50	< 50	< 50	54.8	2.2
Corral Hollow Road, East of LLNL Site 300	< 50	< 50	< 50	55.6	2.1

dBA = Decibel (A-weighted frequency). CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

5.1.11 TRAFFIC

LLNL Livermore Site

Existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site are described in section 4.13. The LLNL Livermore site currently generates approximately 23,960 vehicle trips per day and contributes a high proportion of the vicinity's daily traffic in the a.m. peak hour. Based on an assumed 20 percent growth in personnel at LLNL, approximately 2000 additional personnel are projected at the LLNL Livermore site. Assuming approximately two trips per person per day, this would result in an additional 4000 vehicle trips per day of traffic, for a total of 27,960 vehicle trips per day.

LLNL Site 300

Existing traffic conditions along Corral Hollow Road in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300 are described in section 4.13. LLNL Site 300 currently generates approximately 700 vehicle trips per day. Based on the assumed 20 percent increase in the number of personnel at LLNL (approximately 50 workers at LLNL Site 300), and a trip rate of 3.5 trips per person per day, LLNL Site 300 average daily traffic is projected to increase by 175 vehicle trips, for a total of 875 vehicles per day.

SNL, Livermore

Existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of SNL, Livermore are described in section 4.13. SNL, Livermore currently generates approximately 3100 vehicle trips per day. Based on the assumed 1 percent employment growth at SNL, Livermore (15 additional persons), and a trip rate of 2 trips per person per day, approximately 30 additional vehicle trips would be generated, resulting in a total of 3130 vehicle trips per day.

Standards of Significance

For purposes of this traffic analysis, an impact is considered to be significant if the increment of traffic contributed by the project is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the roadway network (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines), or causes a change in the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio and/or corresponding level of service (LOS) to an unacceptable level. The standard utilized in this EIS/EIR for evaluating traffic conditions in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore is that used by the City of Livermore: a congestion condition exceeding a peak-hour V/C ratio of 0.85 per average day at a major intersection is considered unacceptable. For evaluation of LLNL Site 300 traffic conditions, the current San Joaquin County LOS C standard is used (i.e., LOS D and worse are considered unacceptable). See Appendix K for more detail on these standards of significance and for a discussion of the relationship between V/C ratio and LOS. In addition, a significant impact would be identified if the proposed action resulted in inadequate provision of internal parking and circulation (University of California CEQA Guidelines).

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE

The following section describes the projected traffic conditions in the vicinity of the Laboratories with implementation of the proposed action. Due to the proximity of the two sites, and the fact that some LLNL Livermore site workers park at SNL, Livermore, it was not considered feasible to conduct separate traffic analyses for the two sites for purposes of this EIS/EIR. The respective increment of traffic (i.e., vehicle trips per day) contributed by each Laboratory was determined based on existing and projected personnel numbers at each facility. However, while it is acknowledged that the Laboratories are distinct operations managed and operated by different contractors, the evaluation of Laboratories-related traffic effects on the local circulation network was conducted for the two Laboratories combined, due to the difficulty in distinguishing between LLNL- and SNL, Livermore-related traffic at a given intersection or roadway segment. A separate analysis was performed for LLNL Site 300 due to its distance from the other Laboratories.

Separate traffic analyses were not conducted in the vicinities of LLNL's offsite leased properties because activities associated with the proposed action are not expected to alter the levels of activity at the leased properties and thus would not affect the existing traffic conditions in these areas.

The new vehicle trips projected in conjunction with the proposed action were distributed onto the existing roadway network in the same proportion as the existing Laboratories-related traffic, then added to the existing trips. The daily traffic volumes representing this existing plus proposed action scenario are depicted in Figure 5.1.11-1. An analysis of peak-hour trips at key intersections is provided in Table 5.1.11-1.

Impact 11.1.1 Short-term traffic impacts could result during construction activities on the Laboratory sites. This is a less than significant impact.

Building construction and rehabilitation of several onsite roadways on the Laboratory sites are planned in conjunction with the proposed action. Roadway rehabilitation could include upgrading of some existing roadways with an overlay of new material, patching existing pavement, and installation of curbs and gutters along certain road segments. Short-term circulation impacts could occur on the sites if vehicles are rerouted through the site to avoid construction areas. However, it is anticipated that adequate detour routes and signage would be provided and that the impacts would be brief in nature. No significant short-term traffic impacts are identified for the LLNL Livermore site or SNL, Livermore, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 11.1.2 Implementation of the proposed action would result in increased congestion along local roadways and at intersections in the vicinity of the Laboratories. This is a less than significant impact.

With the implementation of the proposed action, it is assumed that an approximately 20 percent growth in personnel could occur at LLNL over a 10-year period, resulting in a total of approximately 13,200 workers at the LLNL Livermore site. Estimated growth at SNL, Livermore is assumed to be 1 percent over the 10-year period, resulting in approximately 1515 workers (an increase of 15 employees over the current 1500 employees). Using a rate of approximately two trips per day per person at the Laboratories, the following average daily trips are estimated: 27,960 vehicle trips per day for the LLNL Livermore site and 3130 for SNL, Livermore.

As shown in Figure 5.1.11-1, daily traffic increases range from 8 to 15 percent on East Avenue, from 12 to 18 percent on Vasco Road, and from 9 to 12 percent on Greenville Road. In all cases, the traffic resulting from the existing plus proposed action scenario is less than the existing capacity of the affected streets and no significant traffic impacts are identified.

An analysis of peak-hour trips was made for the existing plus proposed action scenario (see Table 5.1.11-1). In order to determine which impacts are significant, a comparison should be made with the City of Livermore's level of service standard, which indicates that the highest desirable V/C ratio at intersections is 0.85, or midlevel LOS D. The First Street intersections were included in the list of study intersections to evaluate future conditions with the planned roadway network in which the effects of the North Mines Road extension could be determined (see Table 5.1.11-1). When North Mines Road is extended, it is expected that the use of this route would be attractive to some Laboratories-related traffic. For the existing, existing plus proposed action, and cumulative scenarios without the planned roadway network, no peak-hour Laboratories-related traffic is expected to use First Street due to its inaccessibility to primary Laboratory access roads. It is noted that two of these study intersections, First Street at Las Positas Boulevard and First Street at North Mines Road, exceed the 0.85 V/C ratio in the existing plus proposed action scenario during the p.m. peak hour (0.89 and 0.87, respectively). However, the same unacceptable V/C ratios currently exist at these intersections, indicating that no additional peak-hour traffic generated in conjunction with the proposed action is expected to utilize these intersections prior to the extension of North Mines Road.

At the Vasco Road/I-580 interchange, the proposed action could increase peak-hour traffic using some portions of the interchange by an estimated 10 to 15 percent. As noted in section 4.13, this interchange does not currently contain intersections involving either of the two ramps serving the major flow of Laboratories-related traffic, and the configuration of the ramps does not lend itself to conventional peak-hour intersection evaluation. Field observations indicate that neither of these off-ramps currently experiences peak-hour congestion (TJKM Transportation Consultants, 1992). It is expected that anticipated traffic increases at this interchange that are associated with the proposed action would not result in unsatisfactory traffic conditions.

In summary, no street segments, intersections, or interchanges are expected to experience unsatisfactory traffic conditions as a result of the existing plus proposed action scenario. Therefore, no significant traffic impacts are identified.

Although no significant project-specific traffic impacts are identified in conjunction with the proposed action, the Laboratories are developing an expanded Transportation Systems Management Program to promote more efficient use of the transportation network. This program would be an extension of the current ridesharing and transit opportunities available to Laboratory employees. In addition to reducing traffic congestion, this program would aid LLNL in complying with federal and state mandates related to vehicle emissions reductions. The program would include such elements as carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles, telecommuting, emergency ride home, guaranteed ride home, and flexible work schedules. Therefore, although no significant impacts are identified, the following mitigation measure is delineated.

Mitigation Measure 11.1.2: While no mitigation is required, LLNL would implement an expanded Transportation Systems Management Program to aid in reducing traffic congestion.

Impact 11.1.3 Acquisition of a portion of East Avenue, and subsequent alteration of the traffic flow along this roadway segment, could affect traffic conditions in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore. This is a less than significant impact.

As part of the proposed action, DOE proposes to acquire East Avenue between Vasco and Greenville Roads. This acquisition is being considered to allow one of the following alternatives for East Avenue to be implemented:

Security gates at both ends of the road with unlimited access to the public.
Security gates at both ends of the road with limited access to the public.

Under the first alternative, East Avenue would remain open to the public following acquisition. Fences, gates, signs, a vehicle turn-around area, and traffic stacking lanes would be installed so that the road could be closed to the public, if necessary, based on security requirements. Under the restricted access alternative, the controls would be for vehicles, personnel, or a combination of both. The vehicle control would allow entrance to all cars with LLNL or SNL, Livermore decals, while the personnel control would require identity verification (touch- badge) for every person entering. A variation would require vehicle control during normal working hours and touch-badge at all other times.

A traffic study, conducted by TJKM Transportation Consultants in 1989, evaluated the potential traffic impacts associated with "closing" or limiting public access to East Avenue if it is required for security reasons. The study concluded that under future buildout conditions in the City of Livermore, levels of service at intersections in eastern Livermore would not be substantially altered if East Avenue were closed to the public (TJKM Transportation Consultants, 1989). Therefore, while traffic patterns would be expected to change, no significant traffic impacts are expected if closure of East Avenue is required for security reasons.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 11.1.4 An increased demand on public transportation would occur. This is a less than significant impact.

Based on the assumed 20 percent increase in personnel at LLNL and the 1 percent increase at SNL, Livermore, an incremental increase in the demand for public transportation would occur with the proposed action. As discussed in section 4.13, the Stockton Metropolitan Transit District supplies six buses (three from Manteca, two from Stockton, and one from Tracy), driven by LLNL employees, which provide ridesharing opportunities to approximately 115 workers from outlying cities. Based on a capacity of 40 seated passengers per bus, it is anticipated that the existing fleet of six buses would be able to accommodate the projected increase in bus riders due to an increase of approximately 2015 workers at the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore with implementation of the proposed action. It is also estimated that the existing direct transit service to the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore by the local Wheels bus service and by the BART Express would not be adversely affected by projected personnel increases. It is anticipated that the public transportation network currently serving the sites could accommodate the projected increase in personnel, and no significant impacts to public transportation services would occur.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 11.1.5 An increase in demand for parking at the LLNL Livermore site would occur.

As discussed in section 4.13, the current parking stall deficit at the LLNL Livermore site is 923 stalls. Based on the estimated demand for parking of 0.71 stall per person delineated in the Parking Master Plan (LLNL, 1988a), the proposed action would result in an increase in the current parking deficit of 1420 stalls (2000 additional personnel×0.71 stalls per person), for a total deficit of 2343 stalls. This is a potentially significant impact which would be mitigated to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 11.1.5: LLNL would continue to monitor the parking supply at the LLNL Livermore site and schedule capital improvements as necessary to alleviate any parking stall deficiencies. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 11.1.2 would also decrease the need for parking.

Impact 11.1.6 An increase in demand for parking at SNL, Livermore would occur. This is a less than significant impact.

As discussed in section 4.13, no parking stall deficiencies are currently identified at SNL, Livermore and the addition of 15 employees in conjunction with the proposed action is not anticipated to create any parking deficiencies.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 11.2.1 Traffic volumes along Corral Hollow Road and at the Corral Hollow Road/I-580 interchange would increase. This is a less than significant impact.

As described earlier, LLNL Site 300 average daily traffic is estimated to increase by up to approximately 175 vehicles per day (50 additional personnel×3.5 trips per person per day). Based on the existing trip distribution pattern, approximately 105 of the additional trips (60 percent) would be directed on Corral Hollow Road toward Tracy, and approximately 70 of the additional trips (40 percent) would be directed toward Livermore.

The existing peak-hour condition at the Corral Hollow Road/I-580 eastbound and westbound on/off ramps is LOS A (see Table 5.1.11-1). With traffic added from the proposed action, conditions at the interchange would remain at acceptable levels. There are no adverse traffic circumstances anticipated anywhere in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300 as a result of increased traffic from the proposed action.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 11.2.2 An increase in demand for parking at LLNL Site 300 would occur. This is a less than significant impact.

As discussed in section 4.13, no parking stall deficiencies are currently identified at LLNL Site 300. There is currently an average of 50 to 60 empty stalls. The assumed increase of 50 personnel at LLNL Site 300 in conjunction with the proposed action is not expected to create any parking deficiencies.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE

The cumulative impact study area for the assessment of traffic impacts at the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore includes the Tri-Valley area. Future traffic conditions (which assume an approximate year 2010 buildout of the General Plan land uses within the study area and, therefore, are also considered to represent cumulative conditions) were analyzed using the MINUTP travel forecasting model of the Tri-Valley area developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants (1992) and described in more detail in Appendix K. This Tri-Valley traffic model consists of a detailed transportation network and traffic zone system for the entire Tri-Valley area (defined as the incorporated cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, Danville, San Ramon, and Dublin as well as adjacent portions of unincorporated Alameda and Contra Costa counties). The model also incorporates assumptions for the balance of the nine-county Bay Area Region and key external stations such as San Joaquin County.

The land use data for the Tri-Valley area are based on the general plans of the individual jurisdictions while the data for the rest of the nine Bay Area counties are based on the Association of Bay Area Governments Projections '90 (Association of Bay Area Governments, 1989). The Association of Bay Area Governments, in its role as the metropolitan council of governments, prepares projections of Bay Area employment and household growth and allocates this growth to various jurisdictions within the Bay Area.

Cumulative analyses for the proposed action and the no action alternative involved the distribution of Laboratory traffic and general plan buildout traffic onto the existing roadway network. (The existing roadway network includes any approved but not yet constructed roadway improvements that would be completed in FY 1992). In addition, model runs were conducted for the no action and proposed action scenarios assuming various roadway improvements in the model area that are not yet, but are expected to be, approved, funded, and completed. The purpose of these analyses was to demonstrate how traffic conditions would be improved with implementation of these improvements. These improvements are described in Appendix K.

The proposed action cumulative analysis essentially represents future conditions with implementation of proposed projects at the Laboratories and with the surrounding area developed to buildout levels contemplated in the general plans of the various city and county jurisdictions and this traffic distributed onto the existing roadway network. The no action cumulative analysis (see section 5.2.11) represents future conditions without the increment of traffic contributed by the proposed action. Therefore, the increment of cumulative traffic congestion attributable to the proposed action can be determined by a comparison of the proposed action and no action projected traffic volumes and peak-hour analyses.

Impact 11.4.1 Cumulative development in the area would result in an increase in traffic congestion along roadways in the vicinity of the site. This is a significant unavoidable impact.

The projected future cumulative average daily traffic volumes on all key roadway segments in the vicinity of the project sites are shown in Figure 5.1.11-2 and Table 5.1.11-1. On Vasco Road, traffic near the Laboratories would increase only slightly from current levels. However, on Vasco Road near I-580, daily traffic volumes are projected to increase from the current volume of approximately 21,000 vehicles per day to approximately 40,000 vehicles per day, largely due to the development of industrial uses in the area between the Laboratories (LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore) and I-580 (TJKM Transportation Consultants, 1992). On Greenville Road, traffic increases are also projected to be substantial due to the development of these industrial land uses. In addition, the projected congestion and lower travel speeds on Vasco Road are anticipated to cause a diversion of traffic (primarily due to Laboratories-related traffic) from the Vasco Road corridor to the Greenville Road corridor, particularly during peak periods. Approximately 24,000 vehicles per day are forecast on the section of Greenville Road south of Southfront Road. Approximately 40 percent more Laboratories-related traffic is projected to be on Greenville Road in the cumulative buildout scenario.

Table 5.1.11-2 presents a description of the anticipated Laboratories-related traffic volumes on the Vasco Road and Greenville Road corridors under future conditions for both the no action and the proposed action cumulative scenarios.

Under the proposed action cumulative scenario, Vasco Road is projected to carry approximately 1400 Laboratories-related vehicles per day in the a.m. peak hour, compared with 1500 vehicles per day under existing conditions and 1200 vehicles per day in the no action cumulative scenario. On the Greenville Road corridor, there are projected to be 1550 vehicles per day under the proposed action, compared with 1050 vehicles under the existing condition and 1350 vehicles under the no action cumulative scenario.

The Laboratories would contribute to this significant cumulative effect on local roadways. Roadway improvements would be required to mitigate the effects of cumulative development; however, these measures are not under the jurisdiction of DOE or UC. Thus, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure: No measures are implementable by DOE or UC.

Impact 11.4.2 Planned and proposed development in the cumulative study area would result in a cumulative increase in traffic congestion at certain intersections in the vicinity of the Laboratories. This is a significant unavoidable impact.

Intersection operations were evaluated using a method of intersection capacity analysis known as the Intersection Capacity Utilization method, which is described in more detail in Appendix K. The LOS and V/C ratios at all study intersections under the no action and proposed action cumulative scenarios are presented in Table 5.1.11-1. As shown in this table, a total of eight intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS F (TJKM Transportation Consultants, 1992) with implementation of the proposed action. This is considered to be a significant cumulative effect.

Two intersections along Greenville Road (at Altamont Pass Road and at Southfront Road) would change from existing LOS C or better to LOS F and LOS E, respectively. This is considered to be a significant cumulative traffic impact. The City of Livermore is in the process of improving the intersection of Greenville Road and Southfront Road. Other improvements are anticipated in conjunction with future development projects in this area. Specifically, Greenville Road would likely be widened to a six-lane road, and a new interchange at I-580/Greenville Road would be required.

The intersection of Greenville Road/East Avenue is projected to change from the existing LOS A condition to an unacceptable LOS F. This is a significant impact for purposes of this EIS/EIR. This intersection would operate at LOS E under the no action cumulative scenario.

The intersection of Greenville Road/Patterson Pass Road would change from the existing LOS A condition in the p.m. peak hour to LOS D under both the no action and the proposed action cumulative scenarios. The V/C ratio would increase to 0.88 with cumulative development associated with buildout of the study area. Because the City of Livermore standard for acceptable traffic conditions at an intersection is a V/C ratio of 0.85 or below, this is considered a significant impact for purposes of this EIS/EIR.

Improvements at the intersections of Greenville Road/Patterson Pass Road and Greenville Road/East Avenue are likely to be necessary to mitigate projected unacceptable traffic conditions at these intersections. These improvements, which would mitigate cumulative impacts from new development activities proposed in the vicinity, are described below, and the resulting traffic conditions following implementation of these improvements are delineated in Table 5.1.11-1 in the "Cumulative Proposed Action (Planned Roadway Network)" column.

The following improvements are suggested future mitigations but have not been formally proposed or funded at this time. These improvements would be the responsibility of the city or county jurisdiction in which the intersections are located.

Intersection of Greenville Road/Patterson Pass Road. Add one northbound and one southbound through lane and traffic signals at such time as the V/C ratio at this intersection approaches unacceptable levels.

Intersection of Greenville Road/East Avenue. Add an additional east to north left-turn lane and traffic signals at such time as the V/C ratio at the intersection approaches unacceptable levels.

Five intersections along First Street (at North Mines Road, Las Positas Boulevard, Southfront Road, the I-580 westbound on/off ramps, and the I-580 eastbound on/off ramps) would change from the existing LOS D to an unacceptable LOS F under the proposed action cumulative scenario. These intersections would also operate at LOS F under the no action cumulative scenario. One intersection along Vasco Road (at Preston Avenue) would also change from the existing LOS C to an unacceptable LOS F. This intersection would operate at LOS F under the no action cumulative scenario as well. Cumulative traffic congestion at this intersection is considered to be significant. The Vasco Road/I-580 interchange is expected to operate at unacceptable levels and to require improvements.

Various roadway and intersection improvement projects are underway or are anticipated in conjunction with future new development projects in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore. The proposed widening of First Street from north of North Mines Road to the I-580 ramps (currently being evaluated by Caltrans) is expected to improve traffic conditions to within acceptable City of Livermore standards at the five First Street intersections identified above. Additional improvements along Vasco Road and at the Vasco Road/I-580 interchange would likely be required in conjunction with the anticipated new development along the Vasco Road corridor (primarily between the LLNL Livermore site and I-580). These improvements, which are the responsibility of the city or county jurisdiction in which the roadways and intersections are located, are discussed in more detail in Appendix K. The LOS and V/C ratios at these intersections that would result from implementation of these improvements are shown in Table 5.1.11-1 under "Cumulative Proposed Action (Planned Roadway Network)."

The four Vasco Road intersections nearest the Laboratories (at Patterson Pass Road, Mesquite Way, Westgate Drive, and East Avenue) are projected to operate at LOS C or better.

In summary, cumulative development within the study area would result in significant cumulative traffic congestion. Roadway and intersection improvements in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore, only some of which are already planned and approved, would be necessary to mitigate this significant cumulative impact in the vicinity of the Laboratories. These improvements would not be on DOE-owned property and would be the responsibility of the city or county agency with jurisdiction over the area. Thus, the impact of cumulative development on traffic congestion in the vicinity of the Laboratories remains significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure: No measures are implementable by DOE or UC.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 11.4.3 Cumulative development would result in an increase in traffic congestion on roadways in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300. This is a less than significant impact.

The cumulative impact study area for evaluation of LLNL Site 300 traffic impacts encompasses existing and proposed development along Corral Hollow Road, including the Corral Hollow Road interchange with I-580. As stated earlier in this section, the proposed action at LLNL Site 300 is not expected to result in any significant project-specific traffic impacts. As shown in Figure 5.1.11-2, future traffic volumes along Corral Hollow Road are projected to be approximately 1150 vehicles per day west of LLNL Site 300 and 1405 vehicles per day east of the site, which is an increase of 450 and 555 vehicles per day, respectively, over existing conditions. This increase would occur mostly due to future development in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300. As indicated above, the amount of traffic related to LLNL Site 300 is not expected to increase substantially along this roadway. The projected volumes along Corral Hollow Road would not exceed the design capacity of the roadway; therefore, no significant cumulative traffic impact is identified.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 11.4.4 Traffic congestion at the Corral Hollow Road/I-580 interchange would increase significantly under cumulative buildout in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300. This is a significant unavoidable impact.

Based on the analysis and modeling conducted for purposes of this EIS/EIR, traffic congestion at the interchange of Corral Hollow Road and the I-580 eastbound and westbound on/off ramps could potentially increase to unacceptable levels from the present LOS A condition as a result of new development (including the proposed Tracy Hills project) in the vicinity of I-580 and LLNL Site 300. Roadway and interchange improvements would be required to mitigate the effects of cumulative development on this intersection. However, these measures are not under the jurisdiction of DOE or UC. Thus, the impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure: No measures are implementable by DOE or UC.

Table 5.1.11-1 Intersection Levels of Service-Existing, Existing Plus Proposed Action, Cumulative No Action, and Cumulative Proposed Action

Intersection ID Number (Refer to Figure K-3 in Appendix K)

Intersection

Existing

Existing Plus Proposed Action

Cumulative No Action

Cumulative No Action (Planned Roadway Network)

Cumulative Proposed Action

Cumulative Proposed Action (Planned Roadway Network)

V/C

LOS

V/C

LOS

V/C

LOS

V/C

LOS

V/C

LOS

V/C

LOS

Corral Hollow Rd/ I-580 SB off-ramp

A.M.
P.M.

0.20
0.24

A
A

ND
ND

Corral Hollow Rd/ I-580 NB off-ramp

A.M.
P.M.

0.23
0.18

A
A

ND
ND

920

First St./I-580 WB on-/off- ramps

A.M.
P.M.

0.85
0.84

D
D

0.85
0.84

D
D

1.13
0.92

F
E

0.79
0.54

C
A

1.12
0.92

F
E

0.78
0.53

C
A

922

First St./I-580 EB on-/off- ramps

A.M.
P.M.

0.75
0.84

C
D

0.75
0.84

C
D

1.42
1.16

F
F

0.84
0.84

D
D

1.45
1.15

F
F

0.85
0.84

D
D

894

First St./Southfront Rd.

A.M.
P.M.

0.84
0.67

D
B

0.84
0.67

D
B

1.06
1.04

F
F

0.67
0.85

B
D

1.09
1.04

F
F

0.66
0.85

B
D

684

First St./Las Positas Blvd.

A.M.
P.M.

0.84
0.89

D
D

0.84
0.89

D
D

1.67
2.07

F
F

0.69
0.81

B
D

1.69
2.05

F
F

0.70
0.80

B
C

615

First St./N. Mines Rd

A.M.
P.M.

0.86
0.87

D
D

0.82
0.87

D
D

1.45
1.51

F
F

0.88
0.86

D
D

1.46
1.54

F
F

0.90
0.86

D
D

655

S. Livermore Ave./East Ave./4th St./H St.

A.M.
P.M.

0.57
0.66

A
B

0.64
0.68

B
B

0.74
0.87

C
D

---
---

0.77
0.87

C
D

---
---

588

East Ave./N. Mines Rd

A.M.
P.M.

0.58
0.69

A
B

0.66
0.74

B
C

0.66
0.89

B
D

0.49
0.80

A
C

0.71
0.90

C
D

0.54
0.83

A
D

617

Vasco Rd./East Ave.

A.M.
P.M.

0.61
0.62

B
B

0.71
0.69

C
B

0.62
0.63

B
B

---
---

0.70
0.69

B
B

---
---

671

Greenville Rd./East Ave.

A.M.
P.M.

0.34
0.42

A
A

0.41
0.46

A
A

0.86
0.92

D
E

0.72
0.51

C
A

0.89
1.01

D
F

0.79
0.56

C
A

924

Vasco Rd./I-580 WB off-ramp

A.M.
P.M.

0.77
0.57

C
A

0.80
0.57

C
A

926

Vasco Rd./I-580 EB off-ramp

A.M.
P.M.

0.56
0.84

A
D

0.57
0.88

A
D

575

Vasco Rd/Preston Ave

A.M.
P.M.

0.62
0.71

B
C

0.72
0.77

C
C

0.88
1.27

D
F

0.66
0.84

B
D

0.88
1.25

D
F

0.62
0.84

B
D

583

Vasco Rd./ Patterson Pass Rd.

A.M.
P.M.

0.70
0.62

B
B

0.78
0.69

C
B

0.74
0.68

C
B

---
---

0.79
0.71

C
C

---
---

616

Vasco Rd./West Gate Dr.

A.M.
P.M.

0.47
0.53

A
A

0.55
0.59

A
A

0.58
0.52

A
A

---
---

0.66
0.60

B
A

---
---

591

Vasco Rd./Mesquite Wy.

A.M.
P.M.

0.41
0.47

A
A

0.45
0.52

A
A

0.32
0.38

A
A

---
---

0.39
0.41

A
A

---
---

Southfront Rd/I-580 EB off-ramp

A.M.
P.M.

0.35
0.46

A
A

Northfront Rd/I-580 WB off-ramp

A.M.
P.M.

0.63
0.32

B
A

928

Greenville Rd/ Altamont Pass Road

A.M.
P.M.

0.70
0.35

B
A

0.75
0.37

C
A

1.07
1.02

F
F

0.65
0.64

B
B

1.24
1.18

F
F

0.74
0.73

C
C

931

Greenville Rd/ Southfront Road

A.M.
P.M.

0.70
0.43

C
A

0.77
0.47

C
A

0.66
0.92

B
E

0.66
0.77

B
C

0.67
0.97

B
E

0.67
0.81

B
D

581

Greenville Rd./ Patterson Pass Rd.

A.M.
P.M.

0.75
0.60

C
A

0.81
0.63

D
B

0.80
0.84

C
D

0.54
0.48

A
A

0.85
0.88

D
D

0.58
0.53

A
A

V/C= Volume-to-capacity ratio.
LOS= Level of service.
--- = No mitigation required at this intersection; refer to the V/C ratio and LOS for unmitigated condition.
NA= Not applicable. No intersections exist at this interchange at the present time. See text for details.
ND= No data generated.
Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 1992.

Table 5.1.11-2 A.M. Peak Hour Laboratories-Related Traffic Volumes

Scenarios	Existing		Cumulative No Action		Cumulative Proposed Action
Scenarios	Volume	%*	Volume	%*	Volume	%*
Vasco Road north of Preston Avenue	1500	53	1200	22	1400	25
Greenville Road south of Southfront Road	1050	90	1350	39	1550	45

* Percent of estimated total A.M. peak-hour traffic volume on roadway that is attributable to LLNL and SNL, Livermore operations.

5.1.12 UTILITIES AND ENERGY

This section discusses the potential impacts of the proposed action on utilities and energy supplies. In several cases LLNL and SNL, Livermore receive utility services and energy resources through the same regional supply systems. While they are distinct operations managed and operated by different contractors, for purposes of this document the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites are addressed together because of their proximity. Even so, utility and energy usage is discussed separately for the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore as often as is feasible. LLNL leased properties (i.e., Camp Parks, 2020 Research Drive, Almond Avenue, Graham Court, and the aircraft hangar at the Livermore Municipal Airport) are considered part of the LLNL Livermore site in assessing utility and energy impacts.

Standards of Significance

For this EIS/EIR, expansion of existing services due to project demand does not constitute a significant impact unless the service provider anticipates great difficulty in providing increased service or the service expansion results in major adverse secondary effects such as a substantial use of a limited resource.

A project is considered to have a significant adverse impact upon utilities and energy if it:

Results in the use of large amounts of fuel, water, or energy;
Uses fuel, water, or energy in a wasteful manner;
Significantly increases the consumption of potable water; requires substantial expansion of water supply treatment and distribution capacity;
Requires substantial expansion of wastewater treatment and distribution facilities; or
Contributes to a cumulative wastewater treatment demand exceeding plant capacity.

Water Consumption

LLNL Livermore Site

The primary source of domestic water for the LLNL Livermore site is the City of San Francisco's Hetch Hetchy water system; an alternative backup source is Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (LLNL, 1991c). The LLNL leased properties have other sources of water. The City of Livermore provides water to 2020 Research Drive and 1460 South Vasco Road, and the California Water Service Company provides water to the Almond Avenue site.

Historically, the LLNL Livermore site has consumed an average of 261.8 million gal annually over the past five years. Water consumption rates at the LLNL Livermore site, however, have declined steadily since 1986, down to 223 million gal in 1990 (Parisotto, 1991a, 1991b).

LLNL Site 300

LLNL Site 300 is supplied with water from a system of wells. The existing capacity of usable wells is approximately 930,000 gal per day. The 5-year water consumption average for LLNL Site 300 is 31.8 million gal per year (Frahm, 1991). The 1990 consumption was 30 million gal. There is, however, a project to supply LLNL Site 300 with water pumped from the City of San Francisco's Hetch Hetchy water supply system. The capacity of this new water supply is estimated to be 500,000 gal per day, with the capability of expanding to 1.2 million gal per day (LLNL, 1990a). The expected completion date for this project is by the end of 1993.

SNL, Livermore

As with the LLNL Livermore site, the primary source of domestic water for SNL, Livermore is the City of San Francisco's Hetch Hetchy water system; an alternative backup source is Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control Water Conservation District. The 5-year water consumption average for SNL, Livermore is 65.6 million gal per year. Water consumption rates at the site have declined steadily since 1986, down to 56 million gal in 1990 (Parisotto, 1991b).

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 12.1.1 Growth at the LLNL Livermore site may result in increased water consumption.

Based on projected 1992 estimates, the LLNL Livermore site consumes approximately 239.7 million gal of water per year. Assuming that water consumption would increase proportionally to the increase in gross square footage, the consumption of water is assumed to increase by 9 percent, to approximately 261.3 million gal per year by the tenth year. Given the severe drought conditions existing in California, this may be considered a significant impact.

Implementation of the following mitigation measures, some of which are drought related, will reduce impacts to a less than significant level:

Mitigation Measure 12.1.1A: LLNL would continue to reduce use of Hetch Hetchy and Zone 7 water for landscaping irrigation below 1989 levels.

Mitigation Measure 12.1.1B: LLNL would continue to reduce blowdown in cooling towers to minimal operable levels.

Mitigation Measure 12.1.1C: LLNL would limit car washing to only that which is essential.

Mitigation Measure 12.1.1D: LLNL would use reclaimed ground water in place of potable water in cooling towers to the greatest extent feasible.

Mitigation Measure 12.1.1E: LLNL would reassess new contracts for additional water-intensive landscaping (i.e., lawn and ground cover) and implement feasible conservation measures, including use of native, drought-resistant plants and drip versus spray irrigation.

Mitigation Measure 12.1.1F: LLNL would monitor all water use to discourage waste or unnecessary use.

Mitigation Measure 12.1.1G: LLNL would use reclaimed ground water in place of potable water for irrigation to the greatest extent possible.

Mitigation Measure 12.1.1H: LLNL would continue the employee water conservation awareness program.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 12.2.1 Growth at LLNL Site 300 may result in increased water consumption.

Based on projected 1992 estimates, LLNL Site 300 consumes approximately 30 million gal of water per year. Assuming that water consumption would increase proportionally to the increase in gross square footage, the consumption of water is assumed to increase by 9 percent, to approximately 32.7 million gal per year by the tenth year. Given the severe drought conditions existing in California, this may be considered a significant impact.

Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to a less than significant level:

Mitigation Measure 12.2.1A: LLNL would continue to reduce landscape irrigation below 1989 levels.

Mitigation Measure 12.2.1B: LLNL would continue to reduce blowdown in cooling towers to minimal operable levels.

Mitigation Measure 12.2.1C: LLNL would limit car washing to only that which is essential.

Mitigation Measure 12.2.1D: LLNL would monitor all water use to discourage waste or unnecessary use.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 12.3.1 Growth at SNL, Livermore may result in increased water consumption.

Based on projected 1992 estimates, SNL, Livermore consumes approximately 58 million gal of water per year. Assuming that water consumption would increase proportionally to the increase in gross square footage, the consumption of water would increase by 6 percent, to approximately 61.5 million gal per year by the tenth year. Given the severe drought conditions existing in California, this may be considered a significant impact.

Implementation of the following mitigation measures, some of which are drought related, will reduce impacts to a less than significant level:

Mitigation Measure 12.3.1A: SNL, Livermore would continue to reduce landscape watering below 1989 levels.

Mitigation Measure 12.3.1B: SNL, Livermore would continue to reduce blowdown in cooling towers to minimal operable levels.

Mitigation Measure 12.3.1C: SNL, Livermore would limit car washing to only that which is essential.

Mitigation Measure 12.3.1D: SNL, Livermore would reassess all new contracts for additional water-intensive landscaping (i.e., lawn and ground cover).

Mitigation Measure 12.3.1E: SNL, Livermore would monitor all water use to discourage waste or unnecessary use.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 12.4.1 Cumulative development in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site would increase demand for and consumption of water. This is a significant and unavoidable adverse impact.

Population in Alameda County is projected to increase by about 8.5 percent by the year 2000 (Association of Bay Area Governments, 1989). In conjunction with the proposed action, this growth could constitute a significant adverse cumulative impact upon water resources and supply systems if the drought and other limiting factors continue. Despite LLNL's conservation measures described in the above mitigation measures, all steps necessary to mitigate this impact are not available to UC or DOE; therefore, it remains significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure 12.4.1: Mitigation measures for the proposed action are set forth under Impact 12.1.1. No mitigation measures are available for other projects in the area.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 12.4.2 Cumulative development in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300 would increase demand for and consumption of water. This is a significant and unavoidable adverse impact.

Population in San Joaquin County is projected to increase by 47.7 percent by the year 2010 (Williams, 1991). This, added to the projected 9 percent increase in usage for LLNL Site 300, could constitute a significant adverse cumulative impact on water resources and on the supply systems if the drought and other limiting factors continue. Despite LLNL's conservation measures described in the above mitigation measures, all steps necessary to mitigate this impact are not available to UC or DOE; therefore, it remains a significant and unavoidable impact.

Mitigation Measure 12.4.2: Mitigation measures for the proposed action are set forth under Impact 12.2.1. No mitigation measures are available for other projects in the area.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—SNL LIVERMORE

Impact 12.4.3 Cumulative development in the vicinity of SNL, Livermore would increase demand for and consumption of water. This is a significant and unavoidable impact.

Population in Alameda County is projected to increase by 8.5 percent by the year 2000. In conjunction with the proposed action, this growth could constitute a significant adverse cumulative impact upon water resources and on the supply systems if the existing drought and associated limiting factors continue. Despite SNL, Livermore's conservation measures, described in the above mitigation measures, all steps necessary to mitigate this impact are not available to SNL or DOE; therefore, this growth remains a significant and unavoidable impact.

Mitigation Measure 12.4.3: Mitigation measures for the proposed action are set forth under Impact 12.3.1. No mitigation measures are available for other projects in the area.

Electricity Consumption

LLNL Livermore Site

Electrical power is supplied to the LLNL Livermore site (including offsite leased properties) by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Western Area Power Administration. The electrical energy used at LLNL is devoted almost entirely to the operation of office buildings and research laboratory facilities. Electricity consumption for the site increased between 1986 and 1990, to 321.3 million kilowatt-hours per year in 1990 (LLNL, 1991c).

LLNL Site 300

Electrical power is supplied to LLNL Site 300 by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Western Area Power Administration. Electricity consumption at the site increased between 1986 and 1989. A slight decline in consumption was observed during 1989 and 1990 (Hale, 1991).

SNL, Livermore

Electrical power is supplied to SNL, Livermore by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Western Area Power Administration. Electricity consumption at the site increased between 1986 and 1989. A slight decline in consumption was observed during 1989 and 1990 (Hale, 1991).

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 12.1.2 Growth at the LLNL Livermore site would result in increased electricity consumption. This is a less than significant impact.

Based on projected 1992 estimates, the LLNL Livermore site consumes approximately 345.4 million kilowatt-hours per year. Assuming that the electrical power consumption would increase proportionally to the increase in gross square footage, the electricity consumption would increase by 9 percent to approximately 376.5 million kilowatt-hours per year by the tenth year. The LLNL distribution system and existing capacity for the utilities to supply energy (on both a total and a peak load basis) would adequately meet the projected increase in consumption.

Consumption increases are addressed in ongoing energy conservation studies, surveys, and audits. Moreover, LLNL will continue efforts to decrease energy use through modifications to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning controls; the design of more efficient buildings; boiler tuneups; and other site energy conservation efforts. The use of permanent, energy- efficient buildings (versus trailers and/or temporary buildings) is being evaluated.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 12.2.2 Growth at LLNL Site 300 would result in increased electricity consumption. This is a less than significant impact.

To provide a conservative estimate for this EIS/EIR, a projected increase in electricity consumption of 9 percent is estimated for LLNL Site 300. Based on projected 1992 estimates, LLNL Site 300 consumes approximately 1.5 million kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. Assuming a proportional increase, the site would consume approximately 1.64 million kilowatt-hours by the tenth year. The existing utility and LLNL Site 300 capacity would adequately meet the projected increase in demand. Continuing efforts are being made to decrease energy use through modifications to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) controls; the design of more efficient buildings; boiler tuneups; and other site energy conservation efforts.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 12.3.2 Growth at SNL, Livermore may result in increased electricity consumption. This is a less than significant impact.

To provide a conservative estimate for this EIS/EIR, a projected increase in electricity consumption of 6 percent is estimated for SNL, Livermore. Based on projected 1992 estimates, SNL, Livermore consumes approximately 40.1 million kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. Assuming a proportional increase, the site would be expected to consume approximately 42.5 million kilowatt-hours by the tenth year. The existing Laboratory distribution system capacity is not adequate to supply SNL, Livermore requirements beyond 1992; however, a new funded project is underway that would increase the power load capacity for SNL, Livermore planned through the year 2005. The existing capacity of the utilities to supply energy (on both a total and a peak load basis) would adequately meet this projected increase in electrical power consumption. Continuing efforts are being made to decrease energy use through modifications to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning controls; the design of more efficient buildings; boiler tuneups; and other site energy conservation efforts.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 12.4.4 Cumulative development at the LLNL Livermore site under the proposed action would increase electric power demand. This is a less than significant impact.

Residential, commercial, industrial, and other uses in Alameda County are expected to increase from about 9334 gigawatt-hours (1 gigawatt-hour equals 1 million kilowatt-hours) in 1990 to over 10,480 gigawatt-hours per year by the year 2000, or an increase in demand of about 12 percent. The projected energy demand of 376.5 gigawatt-hours per year by the tenth year for the proposed action is between 3 and 4 percent of the total estimated demand for Alameda County. The utility supply companies plan to provide sufficient capacity to meet Alameda County electrical energy needs for the next 5 to 10 years. Therefore, the increase in LLNL Livermore site electrical power demand by the tenth year would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 12.4.5 Cumulative development at LLNL Site 300 under the proposed action would increase electric power demand. This is a less than significant impact.

Residential, commercial, industrial, and other uses in San Joaquin County are expected to increase from about 4039 gigawatt-hours per year to about 5031 gigawatt hours per year by the year 2000, an increase in demand of about 25 percent. The projected annual energy demand of 1.64 gigawatt-hours per year by the tenth year for the proposed action is about .03 percent of the total estimated demand for San Joaquin County. While specific information regarding existing capacity is unavailable, the utility supply companies plan to provide sufficient capacity to meet San Joaquin County electrical energy needs through the year 2000. The increase in LLNL Site 300 power demand by the tenth year would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 12.4.6 Cumulative development at SNL, Livermore under the proposed action would increase electric power demand. This is a less than significant impact.

Electrical demand for residential, commercial, industrial, and other uses in Alameda County is expected to increase 12 percent from 1990 to the year 2000. The projected energy demand for SNL, Livermore would be 42.5 million kilowatt-hours annually by the tenth year, or only about 0.4 percent of the projected Alameda County demand. The utility supply companies plan to provide sufficient capacity to meet Alameda County electrical energy needs for the next 5 to 10 years. Therefore, the increase in SNL, Livermore electrical power demand would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Fuel Consumption

LLNL Livermore Site

Gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, liquid propane gas (LPG), and natural gas are the primary fuels consumed at the LLNL Livermore site. The cumulative totals for the site show an increase in gasoline consumption and a decrease in diesel and jet fuel consumption (Holda, 1991). Liquid propane gas consumption remained constant from 1988 to 1990, but there was a decrease from 1986 and 1987 totals. Natural gas consumption for the site increased during each consecutive year from 1986 to 1989, but decreased in 1990. The proposed action projects a 9 percent increase in fuel consumption based on the projected increase in gross square footage of developed space at the Laboratory by the tenth year.

LLNL Site 300

LLNL Site 300 fuel oil consumption has decreased significantly since 1986, down to a 5-year average of 78,114 gal per year (Frahm, 1991) (1986 consumption was 94,391 gal). Fuel oil is used mostly for comfort heating in the building category. In the metered process category, fuel oil is used for comfort heating and in some experiments. The completion of HVAC retrofit projects and mild temperatures have contributed to the overall decrease in fuel oil consumption. The proposed action projects a 9 percent increase in fuel consumption based on the projected increase in gross square footage of developed space at the Laboratory by the tenth year.

SNL Livermore

Gasoline, diesel, LPG, and natural gas are the primary fuels consumed at SNL, Livermore. Gasoline consumption at the site increased from 1986 to 1990. Diesel consumption increased from 1986 to 1988, but has been decreasing since the 1988 high. One hundred and six 16-oz propane cylinders of LPG were used in the maintenance areas during 1986 to 1990. As with the LLNL Livermore site, natural gas consumption for SNL, Livermore increased during each consecutive year from 1986 to 1989, but decreased in 1990 (Hale, 1991). The proposed action projects a 6 percent increase in fuel consumption based on projected increase in gross square footage of developed space at the Laboratory by the tenth year.

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 12.1.3 Total fuel consumption would increase at the LLNL Livermore site as a result of the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact.

For the purposes of the EIS/EIR impact analysis, it is assumed that there would be an approximate 9 percent increase in fuel consumption at the LLNL Livermore site. Based on projected 1992 estimates, the LLNL Livermore site consumes approximately 815,000 gal of total fuel (gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, and LPG) per year. Assuming that the total fuel consumption would increase proportionally to the increase in gross square footage, the total fuel consumption is assumed to increase by 9 percent to approximately 888,200 gal per year by the tenth year. Because this would result in little impact upon supply, this impact is considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 12.2.3 Total fuel consumption would increase at LLNL Site 300 as a result of the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact.

For the purposes of the EIS/EIR impact analysis, it is assumed that there would be an approximate 9 percent increase in fuel consumption at LLNL Site 300. Because this would result in little impact upon supply, this impact is considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 12.3.3 Total fuel consumption at SNL, Livermore would increase as a result of the proposed project. This is a less than significant impact.

For the purposes of the EIS/EIR impact analysis, it is assumed that there would be an approximate 6 percent increase in fuel consumption at SNL, Livermore. Based on projected 1992 estimates, SNL, Livermore consumes approximately 16,600 gal of total fuel (gasoline and diesel) per year. Assuming that the total fuel consumption would increase proportionally to the increase in gross square footage, the total fuel consumption is assumed to increase by 6 percent to approximately 17,600 gal per year by the tenth year. Since fuel supplies are expected to remain ample, this increase represents a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Sewer Discharges

LLNL Livermore Site

The City of Livermore's Water Reclamation Plant (LWRP) currently receives a total of approximately 4.5 million gal of effluent per day. The capacity of this facility is 5 million gal of effluent per day. The facility is currently being expanded and the anticipated completion date is 1994. When completed, the facility would be able to treat 8.5 million gal per day which is expected to be sufficient for inflow treatment for the next 10 years. The 5-year sewer discharge average for the LLNL Livermore site is approximately 113 million gal per year.

LLNL Site 300

LLNL Site 300 sanitary sewage generated outside the General Services Area is disposed of through septic tanks and leachfields or cesspools at individual building locations. Sanitary sewage generated within the General Services Area is piped into an asphalt-membrane-lined oxidation pond east of the General Services Area at an average rate of 3500 gal per day (LLNL, 1991c).

SNL, Livermore

As with the LLNL Livermore site, the City of Livermore's Water Reclamation Plant (LWRP) handles sewage from SNL, Livermore (Grandfield, 1989). The 5-year average for SNL, Livermore is estimated to be approximately 28 million gal per year (Parisotto, 1991b).

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 12.1.4 Retention tank upgrades would reduce the potential for releases of radionuclides to the sewer. This is a beneficial impact.

Retention tanks will be upgraded at Buildings 241, 281, and 227. This would provide improved containment of contaminated wastewater and provide less chance for release to occur.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 12.1.5 An increase in the volume of sewage discharge would result from implementation of the proposed action at the LLNL Livermore site.

Based on projected 1992 estimates, the LLNL Livermore site discharges approximately 115 million gal of sewage per year. Under the proposed action, sewage production would increase by 9 percent to 125 million gal per year by the tenth year. This constitutes a significant impact.

The current daily sewage flows average 366,000 gal with a peak of 710,000 gal. A sewer diversion facility was completed in the spring of 1991 to protect against accidental contamination of City of Livermore treatment facilities (LLNL, 1991c).

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with sewage discharges.

Mitigation Measure 12.1.5: LLNL would evaluate and install, where feasible, process conservation devices or modifications to reduce water consumption. This would result in lower sewage discharges.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 12.2.4 An increase in the volume of sewage discharge at LLNL Site 300 would result from the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact.

Based on projected 1992 estimates, LLNL Site 300 discharges approximately 1.3 million gal of sewage per year. Assuming that sewage discharges would increase proportionally to the increase in gross square footage, the sewage discharge would increase by 9 percent to approximately 1.4 million gal per year by the tenth year. This represents a less than significant impact, as the current infrastructure could withstand such an increase. No offsite sewage treatment is conducted for LLNL Site 300 wastes, so no additional impacts are expected.

It is likely, however, that the proposed action would have a minimal impact on the amount of sewer discharge, as the trend reflects a decrease. Even as more buildings are added, the amount of sewer discharge should continue to decrease. This is especially true in times of drought, as sewer discharges correlate directly with water supply. Water consumption has decreased and is expected to continue to decrease in the future. Because of this, it is expected that sewer discharges would also decrease.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 12.3.4 An increase in the volume of sewage discharge at SNL, Livermore would result from the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact.

Based on projected 1992 estimates, SNL, Livermore produces approximately 27.7 million gal of sewage per year (Parisotto, 1991b). Under the proposed action, sewage production would increase by 6 percent to approximately 29.3 million gal per year by the tenth year. This constitutes a less than significant impact, as the current infrastructure could withstand such an increase.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 12.4.7 The proposed action would impact sewage services together with other development in the service area. This is a less than significant impact.

Sewage treatment facility improvements are already planned in the region. The City of Livermore Water Reclamation Plant (LWRP) currently receives a total of approximately 4.5 million gals of effluent per day. The capacity of this facility is 5 million gal of effluent per day. The facility is currently being expanded and the anticipated completion date is 1994. When completed, the facility would be able to treat 8.5 million gal per day, which is expected to be sufficient for inflow treatment for the next 10 years. Projected sewer discharge volumes could be treated at the LWRP even without the proposed expansion of this facility. Therefore, the cumulative impacts associated with the Laboratories' contribution of sewage discharge is less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Because LLNL Site 300 sewer discharge and treatment programs are mostly self-contained, no cumulative impact is expected as a result of the proposed action. Therefore, LLNL Site 300 would not contribute to any sewage discharge cumulative impacts.

5.1.13 MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

This section discusses the potential impacts of the proposed action separately on materials and on waste management.

Materials Management

The types and quantities of hazardous and radioactive materials used in LLNL and SNL, Livermore program operations vary depending on the type of activities being conducted.

Several modifications to facilities and operations in the proposed action could impact the quantities and types of these materials now used at LLNL and SNL, Livermore. Because program activities under the proposed action are consistent with the existing missions of the Laboratories, however, hazardous materials with similar properties are expected to be used. This projection is based on the activities and projects included in the proposed action, as discussed in section 3.1 and Appendix A.

It is also conservatively assumed for the purposes of this EIS/EIR that use of these materials would increase proportionally to the growth of the Laboratories. As described in the proposed action, this growth would result in an approximate 9 percent increase in square footage at the LLNL Livermore site, 9 percent at LLNL Site 300, and 6 percent at SNL, Livermore.

LLNL Livermore Site

For this EIS/EIR, it is assumed that hazardous materials use and storage at the LLNL Livermore site would also increase by 9 percent. Accordingly, the chemical inventory is conservatively assumed to increase by 19,000 gal of liquids and 210,000 lb of solids by the tenth year. These qualities include compressed gas inventories (recorded in pounds at this site).

Currently, Building 331, the Hydrogen Research Facility, has an administrative limit for tritium of 300 g but an inventory of less than 20 g. Under the proposed action, the administrative limit for this facility would be reduced from 300 g to 5 g and the inventory reduced accordingly. A portion of the tritium operations in Building 331 may be moved to Building 298, the Fusion Target Fabrication Facility, and to Building 391, the Inertial Confinement Fusion Facility, known as the NOVA-Upgrade/National Ignition Facility. In this event, the three buildings would have a combined administrative limit of 10 g with no more than 5 g in any one building. For these facilities, the administrative limit would therefore be reduced from 300 g in one facility (Building 331) to a total of 10 g total in three facilities (Buildings 298, 331, and 391).

LLNL Site 300

The proposed action described in section 3.1.2 would result in an approximate 9 percent increase in site facilities by the tenth year. For purposes of this EIS/EIR, the chemical inventory presented in Section 4 is expected to increase proportionally by 9 percent. Accordingly, the chemical inventory is conservatively assumed to increase by 7600 gal of liquids, 9000 lb of solids, and 171,000 cu ft of gases by the tenth year. Tritium use would resume at the firing tables with an administrative limit of 20 mg.

SNL, Livermore

The proposed action described in section 3.1.3 would result in an approximate 6 percent increase in gross square footage of developed space at the Laboratory over the next 10 years. It is estimated for purposes of the discussion of impacts that the materials quantities would increase proportionally. Accordingly, the chemical inventory is conservatively assumed to increase by 210 gal of liquids, 380 lb of solids, and 11,900 cu ft of compressed gases by the tenth year.

The principal radionuclide used in SNL, Livermore research and development facilities is tritium, used at Building 968, the Tritium Research Facility. The existing administrative limit of 50 g is expected to decrease eventually under the proposed action to 0 g.

Standards of Significance

For purposes of this EIS/EIR, materials and waste management impacts would be considered significant if they:

Create a potential public health hazard or involve the use, production, or disposal of materials that pose a hazard to people or to animal or plant populations;
Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans;
Result in unsafe conditions for employees or for surrounding neighborhoods;
Expose building occupants to work situations that exceed health standards or present an undue potential risk of health-related accidents; or
Conflict with any federal, state, or local regulations or DOE Order for the handling, packaging, storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous and radioactive materials and/or wastes.

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 13.1.1 Increased use of hazardous or radioactive materials would result in an increased number of shipments of materials to and from LLNL. This is a less than significant impact.

Hazardous and radioactive materials are transported both onsite and offsite in compliance with DOE Orders and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. Although transportation of hazardous materials and radioactive materials has associated risks of spills or leaks, appropriate management of transported materials in compliance with applicable laws and regulations would minimize these risks.

The increase in the amount of hazardous materials or radioactive materials transported to and from LLNL as a result of implementing the proposed action cannot be accurately predicted, due to varying research needs over time and changes in classification of hazardous and radioactive materials. The actual number of LLNL offsite shipments of hazardous and radioactive materials averaged 273 a year for 1987–1990 and was 253 for 1990 (see Table 4.15-4). In addition, vendors pick up approximately 250 shipments of hazardous materials from LLNL annually. Adding these vendor pickups to the four-year average of 273 results in a conservative estimate of 523 shipments of hazardous materials annually. If these quantities were to increase by 9 percent by the year 2002, as has been assumed for purposes of this EIS/EIR, the number of shipments would increase by about 47 shipments.

In principle, an increase in transportation of hazardous and radioactive materials to and from LLNL increases the possibility of accidents and resultant exposures to the public. To minimize the probability of accidental spills of hazardous and radioactive materials during transit, and to reduce the severity of such accidental spills, should they occur, the U.S. Department of Transportation, DOE, and the California Department of Transportation have established regulations for the packaging and handling of such materials. These regulations and guidelines are applicable to LLNL and its vendors. At LLNL, these regulations are embodied in written Laboratory procedures and policies that will continue to be updated to comply with changing regulatory requirements (see Appendix K). These procedures ensure that the increase in the number of shipments would not violate any of the conditions set forth as standards of significance. The impact of additional shipments under the proposed action is, therefore, less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 13.2.1 Increased use of hazardous and radioactive materials would result in an increased number of shipments or transfers of materials to and from LLNL Site 300. This is a less than significant impact.

As described in Impact 13.1.1, shipments of hazardous and radioactive materials must comply with applicable DOE Orders and Department of Transporation requirements for safe packaging, vehicle inspections, and driver qualifications. Existing LLNL procedures to ensure compliance with these requirements would be modified in accordance with any applicable regulatory changes. Hence, compliance with these orders and requirements would continue as part of the proposed actions and the impact is considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 13.3.1 An increase in the quantity of hazardous or radioactive materials transported to and from SNL, Livermore would result under the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact.

The number of SNL, Livermore offsite shipments of hazardous and radioactive materials during 1987–1990 averaged 338 per year. Assuming the projected 1992 shipments to be 350, a 6 percent increase in this number would add 21 shipments by the end of the 10 years. Beyond the difference in expected shipment increases, the discussion under Impact 13.1.1 applies equally to SNL, Livermore.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Impact 13.4.1 The projected growth of LLNL and SNL, Livermore, together with increased development in regional industrial areas, would result in an increased number of shipments of radioactive and hazardous materials. This is a less than significant impact.

The industries in the area around the Laboratories and those that may be expected to be developed during the 5- to 10-year period of the proposed action would use some of the same hazardous materials used by the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore. According to recent EIRs for local projects and other regional planning documents, development in the area is projected to be light industry, and its use of hazardous materials is expected to be much less intense than the Laboratories' use. The nature and amounts of hazardous materials that may be used are unknown, although none of these proposed nearby industries is expected to use radioactive materials. Regional hospitals, however, do use various radionuclides in their diagnostic procedures. What is known is that the usage and the transportation of these materials must comply with California and, where appropriate, U.S. Department of Transportation regulations.

The numbers of shipments of hazardous and radioactive materials to and from LLNL and SNL, Livermore are of course contingent on project and program activity at the Laboratories. Under the proposed action, however, the number of these shipments during the next 5 to 10 years is not expected to vary significantly from the trends illustrated in Tables 4.15-4 and 4.15-5. To provide a regional perspective on LLNL and SNL, Livermore hazardous shipments, however, Table 5.1.13-1 presents statistics compiled by the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) on the annual amount of heavy truck traffic in the three major counties of the region (Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin counties).

Based on the annual average daily traffic counts of truck activity on I-580, total annual hazardous material shipments (including an estimated 250 vendor pickups) from LLNL represent less than 6 percent of the shipments for the total daily truck traffic counted at the I-580 and Greenville Road intersection in 1989. SNL, Livermore annual shipments represent approximately 3 percent of the total daily truck traffic counted in 1989 at the same intersection. Assuming a 9 percent increase for LLNL and a 6 percent increase for SNL, Livermore shipments under the proposed action, these trends show a very small contribution to cumulative impacts (see Figure K-2, Appendix K).

Based on a 9 percent assumed increase, an assumed increase in the number of such shipments during the 5- to 10-year period of the proposed action would be less than 50 at LLNL. Based on a 6 percent assumed increase in shipments during the same 5- to 10-year period, the additional shipments at SNL, Livermore would be 21.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted. No mitigation measures are available for other projects in the area.

Table 5.1.13-1 Annual Average Daily Truck (AADT) Traffic on Interstates 580 and 205 at Selected Intersections in the Vicinity of LLNL and SNL, Livermore, 1985-1989^a

I-580 Intersections	1985	1986	1987	1988	1989
Junction Route 84 (Alameda County)^b	9,483	10,653	11,202	11,478	12,027
Greenville Road (Alameda County)^b	9,434	10,746	11,238	11,894	10,314
Junction Route 205 East (San Joaquin County)^c	8,120	9,280	9,715	10,295	13,332

^a Represents daily traffic counts of Interstate 580 truck traffic averaged annually passing these intersections.
^b Represents average of truck traffic counts made at both on- and off-ramps.
^c Traffic count for this intersection is estimated.

Source: California Department of Transportation, 1991.

Waste Management

Future waste types are expected to be similar to those currently generated (see section 4.15.2 and Appendix B). This projection is based on the similarity of those activities and projects included in the proposed action, as discussed in Section 3, to current activities at the Laboratories.

Some proposed action activities, such as new experimental programs and research facilities, would most likely result in increased waste generation. Others, such as more efficient processes and waste separation and collection systems, and reduced operations at major waste generator facilities, are likely to reduce waste generation by individual facilities and programs.

In addition to the above factors influencing waste generation, the State of California and DOE have mandated the implementation of waste minimization programs. Both LLNL and SNL, Livermore are committed to reducing waste generation by implementing sitewide waste minimization programs, as discussed in Appendix B.

Based upon all the above factors, and considering future advances in technology, it is expected that increases in waste generation from the proposed action would be offset by reductions in other areas. However, due to the uncertainties in predicting waste generation, it is conservatively assumed (for purposes of this EIS/EIR) that waste generation would increase proportionally with growth of the Laboratories. This approach ignores benefits from future reductions in waste generation from waste minimization programs, advances in waste treatment/processing technologies, and efficiencies associated with modernized experimental and waste handling facilities.

Standards of Significance

The standards of significance relative to waste management are the same as those applied to materials management.

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 13.1.2 Implementation of the proposed action may result in an increase in the generation of hazardous, radioactive, mixed, and medical waste at the LLNL Livermore site. This is a less than significant impact.

The proposed action would result in an approximate 9 percent increase in the LLNL Livermore site facilities (based upon the projected increase in square footage of developed space) over the next 10 years. This projected growth was used to estimate waste generation as described below.

Radioactive Wastes. Based on projected 1992 estimates, the LLNL Livermore site generates approximately 287,000 lb of solid and 22,000 gal of liquid low-level radioactive waste (LLW) annually. In addition, the site generates approximately 2700 cu ft of transuranic waste per year. Under the proposed action, radioactive waste generation is conservatively assumed to increase by approximately 9 percent to add 26,000 lb of solid low-level waste, 2000 gal of liquid low-level waste, and 240 cu ft of transuranic waste by the tenth year.

Hazardous Waste. Based on projected 1992 estimates, the LLNL Livermore site generates approximately 567,000 lb of solid and 309,000 gal of liquid hazardous waste annually. Under the proposed action, hazardous waste generation is conservatively assumed to increase by approximately 9 percent, adding 51,000 lb and 28,000 gal by the tenth year.

Mixed Wastes. Based on projected 1992 estimates, the LLNL Livermore site generates approximately 45,000 lb and 23,000 gal of mixed waste annually. Under the proposed action, mixed waste generation is conservatively assumed to increase by approximately 9 percent, adding 4600 lb and 2100 gal by the tenth year.

Medical Waste. Based on projected 1992 estimates, the LLNL Livermore site generates approximately 2600 lb of medical waste annually. Under the proposed action, medical waste generation is conservatively assumed to increase by approximately 9 percent, adding 230 lb by the tenth year.

As discussed in section 4.15.2, many laws and regulations aim at minimizing the adverse environmental effects associated with the generation of these waste streams. One of the most important ways LLNL can minimize such effects is through continued compliance with laws and regulations that mandate, for example, how the waste is handled, stored, and transferred, record-keeping and reporting, and operational safety procedures. Additionally, new waste treatment facilities projected under the proposed action would provide additional waste treatment, thus reducing total waste quantities that have to be stored/handled.

Pollution prevention and waste minimization remain a priority at the Laboratories. Laboratory programs have been developed that emphasize source identification and reduction, and are discussed in section B.3.3 in Appendix B.

Because safety procedures mandated by federal, state, and local laws and regulations and LLNL policies and procedures would be implemented as part of the proposed action, this is considered a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 13.1.3 Mixed waste generation may require onsite storage beyond storage limits prescribed by RCRA and could result in a need for additional storage capacity. This is a potentially significant and unavoidable impact.

The LLNL Livermore site generates transuranic and low-level mixed waste, almost all of which is prohibited from land disposal under RCRA without first being treated to meet defined standards. Currently, there are no treatment or disposal options available. Long-term storage of these mixed wastes would violate RCRA storage regulations (42 U.S.C. section 3004(j)). Because extended storage would violate federal regulations, the generation of these mixed wastes is considered to have a significant and unavoidable impact on the environment.

The EPA recognizes that "generators and storers of these wastes may find it impossible to comply with the section 3004(j) storage prohibition if there are no available options for treatment or disposal of the wastes" (56 Fed. Reg. 42731). The EPA also recognizes that "responsible management practices should minimize the environmental risks from these section 3004(j) storage violations" (56 Fed. Reg. 42731).

In addition to potential violation of RCRA land disposal restriction regulations, storage capacities currently operated under interim permit status may be exceeded. For both transuranic and low-level mixed waste, the LLNL Livermore site had approximately 580 cu yd and 71,900 gal of available capacity based on practical storage space in December 1991. Based on waste quantities projected for the proposed action, the remaining capacity would be exhausted within the next 5 to 10 years if treatment and disposal remain unavailable.

Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts associated with extended storage of mixed waste.

Mitigation Measure 13.1.3A: LLNL would continue to enhance its waste minimization policies and practices to reduce generation of mixed wastes at the source.

Mitigation Measure 13.1.3B: When treatment, storage, and/or disposal options become available for these mixed wastes, LLNL would pursue those alternatives.

Mitigation Measure 13.1.3C: LLNL would treat increased quantities of treatable low-level liquid mixed wastes at the wastewater treatment tank farm to reduce total volumes. In addition, the planned Mixed Waste Treatment Facility would be used to reduce the volume of combustible mixed wastes.

Mitigation Measure 13.1.3D: If it appears that LLNL is approaching storage capacity limits, LLNL would apply for additional permitted capacity to accommodate storage until treatment, storage, and/or disposal become available.

Impact 13.1.4 Increased radioactive waste storage capability may be required under the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact.

Currently, the LLNL Livermore site is storing radioactive wastes onsite pending approval of waste certification plans to meet the waste acceptance criteria (NVO-325) at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). These wastes are being stored in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.

If the waste certification plans for the Nevada Test Site (or other approved facility) are not approved, LLNL must continue to store radioactive wastes onsite. This represents a worst- case scenario since other facilities have developed approved certification plans meeting the requirements of NVO-325, and LLNL fully expects to have its plans approved by early 1993. Although storage space for radioactive waste is limited by exposure considerations at a given location, these wastes can be stored onsite indefinitely provided that the waste is properly packaged, labeled, and monitored. Given the number of available storage locations, LLNL can store projected radioactive wastes in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations for the period covered by this EIS/EIR or until disposal at the Nevada Test Site (low-level waste), the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (transuranic waste), or other approved storage and/or disposal facilities become available.

Compliance with applicable laws and regulations, available storage capacity, implementation of waste minimization programs, and the planned startup of new onsite waste treatment facilities (i.e., the Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility) make the impacts associated with radioactive waste storage less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 13.1.5 Increased waste generation would result in an increased number of waste shipments. This is a less than significant impact.

Hazardous and radioactive wastes are transported both onsite and offsite in compliance with DOE Orders and DOT regulations. Compliance with these regulations through appropriate packaging, qualified vehicles and drivers, and required vehicle inspections provides protection to workers and to the public. The relative impacts of increased shipments of hazardous and radioactive wastes is less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 13.1.6 The Mixed Waste Treatment Facility is planned to provide treatment processes for mixed wastes with combustible organic constituents that are presently stored onsite and that have no disposal option. This is a beneficial impact.

The Mixed Waste Treatment Facility would be designed on the basis of the best demonstrated technologies that are currently available for treatment of combustible mixed wastes. This would reduce the inventory of such wastes stored onsite and reduce the potential exposure of workers in the vicinity of the storage area.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 13.1.7 The proposed Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility would replace the current waste processing facility, improving waste management capability. This is a beneficial impact.

The Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility would replace and upgrade current LLNL Livermore site waste management facilities used to process, treat, and store hazardous, radioactive, and mixed waste. The facility would substantially expand LLNL's capacity for treating these wastes. Treatment of a greater percentage of the wastes using advanced technologies would result in improvements in treatment efficiency and would reduce the quantity of releases of radionuclides to the sewer and to the atmosphere. This would also reduce quantities of waste that would otherwise be transported to an offsite permitted facility for treatment, thereby reducing potential impacts associated with transportation.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 13.1.8 Retention tank upgrades would reduce the potential for releases of radionuclides to the sewer. This is a beneficial impact.

Retention tanks would be upgraded at numerous building locations including at Buildings 241, 281, and 227. This would provide improved containment of contaminated wastewater and provide less chance for release to occur.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 13.2.2 Implementation of the proposed action may result in an increase in the generation of radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and medical waste at LLNL Site 300. This is a less than significant impact.

The proposed action would result in an approximate 9 percent increase in LLNL Site 300 facilities (based upon the projected increase in square footage of developed space) over the next 10 years. This projected growth was used to estimate waste generation as described below.

Radioactive Waste. Based on projected 1992 estimates, LLNL Site 300 generates approximately 300,000 lb of solid low-level radioactive waste (LLW) annually. Under the proposed action, radioactive waste generation is conservatively assumed to increase by approximately 9 percent to add 27,000 lb of low-level radioactive waste by the tenth year. However, the construction of the Contained Firing Facility would greatly reduce the generation of this solid low-level radioactive waste, making this projection extremely conservative.

Hazardous Waste. Based on projected 1992 estimates, LLNL Site 300 generates approximately 37,000 lb and 41,000 gal of hazardous waste annually. In addition, LLNL Site 300 generates approximately 4500 lb of high explosive waste annually. Under the proposed action, hazardous waste generation is conservatively assumed to increase by approximately 9 percent to add 3300 lb and 3700 gal as well as approximately 400 lb of high explosive waste by the tenth year.

Mixed Waste. Based on projected 1992 estimates, LLNL Site 300 generates approximately 2000 lb of mixed waste annually. Under the proposed action, mixed waste generation is conservatively assumed to increase by approximately 9 percent to add 180 lb by the tenth year. Mixed waste generated at LLNL Site 300 is shipped to the LLNL Livermore site for storage.

Medical Waste. LLNL Site 300 generates approximately 12 lb of medical waste annually. Under the proposed action, medical waste generation is conservatively assumed to increase by approximately 9 percent to add 1 lb by the tenth year.

Because LLNL Site 300 and the LLNL Livermore site are operated under the same waste management program, the earlier discussions regarding impacts to the LLNL Livermore site under Impact 13.1.2 apply to LLNL Site 300; this is a less than significant impact. For a discussion of waste treatment facilities, available waste storage, and disposal options, see Appendix B.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 13.2.3 Increased radioactive waste storage capability may be required under the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact.

Currently, LLNL Site 300 is storing radioactive wastes onsite pending approval of waste certification plans to meet the waste acceptance criteria (NVO–325) at the Nevada Test Site. These wastes are being stored in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.

If the waste certification plans for NTS (or other approved facility) are not approved, LLNL must continue to store radioactive wastes onsite. This represents a worst-case scenario since other facilities have developed approved certification plans meeting the requirements of NVO-325, and LLNL fully expects to have its plans approved by early 1993. Although storage space for radioactive waste is limited by exposure considerations at a given location, these wastes can be stored onsite provided that the waste is properly packaged, labeled, and monitored. Given the number of available storage locations, LLNL Site 300 can store projected radioactive wastes in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations until disposal at the Nevada Test Site, or another approved disposal facility, becomes available.

Compliance with applicable laws and regulations, available storage capacity, and the implementation of waste minimization programs make the impacts associated with radioactive waste storage less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 13.2.4 Increased waste generation would result in an increased number of waste shipments. This is a less than significant impact.

Hazardous and radioactive wastes are transported both onsite and offsite in compliance with DOE Orders, Department of Transportation regulations, and California Department of Transportation requirements. Among the major safety factors in shipping hazardous and radioactive materials are the requirements for approved packaging, vehicle inspection, driver qualifications, routing restrictions, when appropriate, and placarding requirements. Compliance with these regulations provides protection to workers and to the public.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 13.3.2 The projected growth at SNL, Livermore may result in the increased generation of radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and medical wastes. This is a less than significant impact.

The proposed action would result in an approximate 6 percent increase in SNL, Livermore facilities (based upon the projected increase in square footage of developed space) over the next 10 years. This projected growth was used to estimate waste generation as described below.

Radioactive Waste. Based on projected 1992 estimates, SNL, Livermore generates approximately 8860 lb and 7670 gal of solid low-level radioactive waste annually. Under the proposed action, radioactive waste generation is conservatively assumed to increase by approximately 6 percent to add 540 lb and 460 gal of low-level radioactive waste by the tenth year. Wastewater whose tritium content exceeds that permitted for discharge to the sanitary sewer is evaporated at the Tritium Research Laboratory.

Hazardous Waste. Based on projected 1992 estimates, SNL, Livermore generates approximately 6320 lb and 3940 gal of hazardous waste annually. Under the proposed action, hazardous waste generation is conservatively assumed to increase by approximately 6 percent to add 380 lb and 240 gal by the tenth year.

Mixed Wastes. Based on projected 1992 estimates, SNL, Livermore generates approximately 73 lb of solid mixed waste and 250 lb of scintillation cocktails annually. Under the proposed action, mixed waste generation is conservatively assumed to increase by approximately 6 percent to add 4 lb and 15 lb by the tenth year.

Medical Waste. Based on projected 1992 estimates, SNL, Livermore generates approximately 124 lb of medical waste annually. Under the proposed action, medical waste generation is conservatively assumed to increase by approximately 6 percent to add 7 lb by the tenth year.

As described throughout this report, there is a vast array of laws and regulations aimed at minimizing the adverse environmental effects associated with the generation of these waste streams. One of the most important means for SNL, Livermore to minimize such effects is continued compliance with such laws and regulations.

Because safety procedures mandated by federal, state, and local laws and regulations and SNL, Livermore policies and procedures would be implemented as part of the proposed action, this is considered a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 13.3.3 Mixed waste generation would require onsite storage beyond storage limits prescribed by RCRA. This is a potentially significant and unavoidable impact.

SNL, Livermore generates mixed waste, almost all of which is prohibited from land disposal under RCRA without first being treated to meet defined standards. Currently there are no treatment or disposal options available. Long-term storage of these mixed wastes would violate the RCRA storage regulations (42 U.S.C. section 3004(j)). Because extended storage would violate federal regulations, the generation of these mixed wastes is considered to be a significant and unavoidable impact.

The EPA recognizes that "generators and storers of these wastes may find it impossible to comply with the section 3004(j) storage prohibition if there are no available options for treatment or disposal of the wastes" (56 Fed. Reg. 42,731). The EPA also recognizes that "responsible management practices should minimize the environmental risks from these section 3004(j) storage violations" (56 Fed. Reg. 42,731).

Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts associated with extended storage of mixed waste.

Mitigation Measure 13.3.3A: SNL, Livermore would continue to enhance its waste minimization policies and practices to reduce generation of mixed wastes at the source.

Mitigation Measure 13.3.3B: When treatment and disposal options become available for these mixed wastes, SNL, Livermore would pursue these alternatives.

Impact 13.3.4 Increased waste generation may result in increased storage requirements for radioactive and mixed waste. This is a less than significant impact.

Currently, SNL, Livermore is storing radioactive wastes onsite pending approval of waste certification plans to meet the waste acceptance criteria (NVO-325) at the Nevada Test Site. In addition, mixed wastes are being stored pending available treatment and disposal options (as discussed above). Storage of wastes complies with applicable rules and regulations.

If the waste certification plans for the Nevada Test Site (or another approved facility) are not approved, SNL, Livermore must continue to store radioactive wastes onsite. This represents a worst-case scenario since other facilities have developed approved certification plans meeting the requirements of NVO-325, and SNL, Livermore fully expects to have its plans approved. Although storage space for radioactive waste is limited by exposure considerations at a given location, these wastes can be stored onsite provided that the waste is properly packaged, labeled, and monitored. Given the number of available storage locations, SNL, Livermore can store projected radioactive wastes in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations for the period covered by this EIS/EIR or until disposal at the Nevada Test Site or another approved disposal facility becomes available.

For mixed waste, SNL, Livermore has sufficient permitted capacity at Building 961 to store projected mixed waste quantities for the period covered by this EIS/EIR or until treatment and disposal become available. Additionally, mitigation measures discussed earlier for mixed waste generation would help minimize the impact of mixed waste storage.

Compliance with applicable laws and regulations, available storage capacity, implementation of waste minimization programs, and the probability of approved disposal becoming available make the impacts associated with radioactive and mixed waste storage less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 13.3.5 Increased waste generation would result in an increased number of waste shipments. This is a less than significant impact.

Hazardous and radioactive wastes are transported both onsite and offsite in compliance with DOE Orders and DOT regulations. Compliance with these requirements through appropriate packaging, qualified vehicles and drivers, and required vehicle inspections provides protection to workers and to the public. The relative impacts of increased shipments of hazardous and radioactive wastes at SNL, Livermore are less than significant. The comparison of regional truck traffic for cumulative hazardous materials shipments (see Impact 13.4.1) would also apply to cumulative impacts for hazardous waste shipments.

Decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory would add 15 to 20 shipments of low-level radioactive waste and radioactively contaminated equipment from SNL, Livermore over the 3 years of this project.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 13.3.6 Decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory would result in an increased generation of low-level radioactive wastes for the three years of the project. This is a less than significant impact.

Decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory would generate an estimated 100,000 lb of equipment and contaminated materials. These materials will be properly packaged and surveyed according to DOT regulations before shipment to offsite licensed disposal facilities in DOE- and DOT-approved containers. Refer to Appendix A, section A.3.5.3 for a detailed description of this project.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted

Impact 13.3.7 Decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory would result in increased mixed waste generation during the 3 years of the project. This is a less than significant impact.

Decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory would generate an estimated 310 gal of low-level mixed wastes, which include pump oils, Beckman scintillation cocktail fluids, and decontamination cleaning solvent (isopropyl alcohol).

Scintillation cocktails would continue to be sent to a permitted facility in Florida for incineration. Pump oils and cleaning solvent will be stored onsite. As discussed in Impact 13.3.4, SNL, Livermore has sufficient permitted capacity at Building 961 to store these waste quantities until treatment and disposal become available. Refer to Appendix A, section A.3.5.3 for a detailed description of this project.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Impact 13.4.2 Assumed growth at the Laboratories and at other waste-generating facilities may result in increased waste generation, treatment, and disposal. This is a significant and unavoidable impact.

Projected increases in waste generation at the Laboratories under the proposed action would result in increased treatment and disposal requirements for these wastes. In addition, increased waste generation from other waste generators around the country could impact treatment and disposal capacities.

In order to properly evaluate the cumulative impacts of increased waste generation on treatment and disposal, potential impacts must be evaluated on a national scale. Currently, different treatment and disposal options exist for various waste streams. For example, SNL, Livermore currently sends scintillation cocktails to a permitted facility in Florida for treatment and disposal. Similarly, other DOE facilities around the country ship radioactive waste to the Nevada Test Site for disposal.

DOE is evaluating national capacity and the relative cumulative impacts of waste generation on treatment and disposal facilities as part of the Programmatic EIS for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management. Due to lack of information currently available, the cumulative impacts associated with increased waste generation are assumed to be significant and unavoidable.

Both LLNL and SNL, Livermore will meet regulatory requirements in packaging, transporting, and disposing of increased waste materials.

Mitigation Measure 13.4.2: Mitigation measures to prevent or reduce these cumulative impacts are beyond the authority of UC. DOE is addressing the issue on a national scale as part of a Programmatic EIS.

Impact 13.4.3 Assumed growth at the Laboratories and surrounding facilities may result in increased hazardous and radioactive waste shipments in the area. This is a significant and unavoidable impact.

Other projects proposed or under construction in the area (e.g., the industrial park developments occurring in the region of the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore) would increase the quantity of hazardous wastes being transported in the area. Vendor and commercial haulers of these wastes, however, must have appropriate licenses and must comply with applicable laws concerning hazardous materials packaging, vehicle safety requirements, and driver qualifications (see Appendix K for a discussion of these requirements). Although the contribution of LLNL and SNL, Livermore to potential cumulative hazardous waste transportation impacts is small, the effects of increased hazardous waste shipments in the region could pose a significant and unavoidable impact from possible transportation accidents involving these wastes.

Decommissioning of the SNL, Livermore Tritium Research Laboratory would add 15 to 20 shipments of low-level radioactively contaminated equipment and scrap materials during the 3 years of this project, as discusssed in Impact 13.3.5 and Appendix A.

The impacts and risks of incident-free transportation and potential transportation accidents associated with LLNL shipments of defense-related transuranic wastes are analyzed in the Supplement Environmental Impact Statement for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (DOE, 1990). The EIS/EIR also includes bounding transportation accident analyses for both LLNL and SNL, Livermore, presented in Appendix D and summarized in section 5.6. The safeguards built into the packaging, vehicle, and driver regulatory requirements have served to prevent any appreciable release of radioactive waste in the more than 40 years of experience DOE (and its predecessor agencies) has had shipping these materials.

Nonetheless, many of the shipments of radioactive materials or waste that occur in the region are outside the control of DOE and UC and, therefore, the potential exists for a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact from the increased shipments of radioactive materials or wastes.

Mitigation Measure 13.4.3: Mitigation measures to prevent or reduce these cumulative impacts are beyond the authority of UC. DOE is addressing the issue on a national scale as part of a Programmatic EIS.

5.1.14 OCCUPATIONAL PROTECTION

This section presents information about impacts on occupational protection at LLNL and SNL, Livermore associated with changes in the use of radioactive materials, hazardous materials, and physical hazards that may result from the proposed action.

Occupational Protection-Radiation Protection

LLNL Livermore Site and LLNL Site 300

During 1990 the collective radiation dose to workers at LLNL (i.e., the radiation dose above background that is received collectively by all LLNL workers during the year) was about 28.5 person-rem effective dose equivalent. These exposures include those received by workers at LLNL Site 300 as well as those at the LLNL Livermore site. About two-thirds of this collective dose, or 19.6 person-rem, was due to external radiation received by workers at Building 332, the Plutonium Facility. The remainder of the external radiation doses occurred at diverse locations throughout the LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300. In 1990, workers in Building 331, the Hydrogen Research Facility, received a collective internal radiation dose of about 0.5 person-rem from intakes of tritium. There are no other facilities on these sites where internal exposure could normally occur.

Current radiation doses are well within DOE guidelines for protection of worker safety. A number of changes in facilities and operations included in the proposed action, however, would have an impact on radiation exposure to workers at the LLNL Livermore site. These include:

Upgrade of Building 332, the Plutonium Facility, providing technological improvements, new equipment, and state-of-the-art gloveboxes.
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.
Currently, Building 331, the Hydrogen Research Facility, has an administrative limit for tritium of 300 g and an inventory of less than 20 g. Under the proposed action, the administrative limit for Building 331 would be reduced from 300 g to 5 g with the inventory reduced accordingly. A portion of the tritium operations in Building 331 may be moved to Building 298, the Fusion Target Fabrication Facility, and to Building 391, the Inertial Confinement Fusion Facility, known as the NOVA-Upgrade/National Ignition Facility. In this event, the three buildings would have a combined administrative limit of 10 g with no more than 5 g in any one building. For these facilities, the administrative limit would therefore be reduced from 300 g in one facility (Building 331) to 10 g total in three facilities (Buildings 298, 331, and 391).
At LLNL Site 300, tritium use would resume at the firing tables with a limit of 20 mg.
Decontamination and restoration of Building 292, which houses the Rotating Target Neutron Source Test Facility; and Building 212, which housed the Rotating Target Neutron Source prototype.

The external radiation doses received by workers at LLNL Site 300 are included with the totals reported for the LLNL Livermore site; however, there are currently no facilities operating at LLNL Site 300 that made a major contribution to the collective radiation exposures to workers at LLNL Site 300 during 1990.

The proposed action would include an upgrade of the Flash X-Ray accelerator (FXR), which would be a source of potential external radiation exposure to workers. Also included in the proposed action is the restarting of the Advanced Test Accelerator. Tritium use would also resume at the firing tables with an administrative limit of 20 mg.

SNL, Livermore

The collective radiation dose to workers at SNL, Livermore during 1990 was approximately 3.5 person-rem. About 1 person-rem of this collective dose was due to internal exposure from the intake of tritium to personnel at Building 968, the Tritium Research Laboratory. The remaining radiation dose, 2.5 person-rem, was due to external exposures at other SNL, Livermore locations. These radiation doses are well within DOE guidelines for protection of worker safety.

The administrative limit for tritium in Building 968 has been reduced to 50 g; the current inventory is less than 45 g. The proposed action for SNL, Livermore includes reduction of the administrative limit in Building 968 for tritium to zero by the end of FY 1993, and decommissioning and conversion of the Tritium Research Laboratory to alternative uses. The potential for radiation exposure to tritium, therefore, would decrease, eventually falling to zero, as the inventory of tritium is reduced to zero and the building is converted to alternative uses.

During decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory, a 10-worker decontamination team would be exposed to radiation. The collective radiation dose of these workers for the entire 3 years of this project is estimated to be 6 person-rem (0.2 rem per person per year × 3 years × 10 persons). These radiation doses are within the DOE guidelines for worker safety of 5 rem per year per person. In addition, according to DOE experience in decommissioning tritium facilities, there is a chance of inadvertent releases of tritium during the decontamination operations. These inadvertent releases could add an estimated 1 to 4 person-rem to the estimate.

Standards of Significance

For purposes of this EIS/EIR, occupational protection impacts would be considered significant if they:

Create a potential public health hazard or involve the use, production, or disposal of materials that pose a hazard to people or to animal or plant populations in the area affected;
Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans;
Result in unsafe conditions for employees or for surrounding neighborhoods;
Expose building occupants to work situations that exceed health standards or present an undue potential risk of health-related accidents; or
Cause concentrations of radionuclides in water and air that exceed the appropriate DOE Derived Concentration Guidelines.

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 14.1.1 The planned upgrade of the Plutonium Facility would reduce external radiation exposures to workers by reducing the frequency and duration of exposures through design modifications that would provide additional shielding and ease of access to enhance the concept of "as low as reasonably achievable." This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial.

The technical upgrades to the Plutonium Facility include new equipment, capabilities, and state-of-the-art gloveboxes, which would improve the efficiency of handling weapons-grade plutonium and reduce the potential for radiation exposure to workers.

Further, 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.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 14.1.2 Reduction of the administrative limit for plutonium in Building 332, the Plutonium Facility, would reduce the radiation exposure of workers handling plutonium. This is a beneficial impact.

The collective radiation dose to workers from current operations at LLNL is about 28.5 person-rem. About two-thirds of this collective radiation dose, 19.6 person-rem, is received by workers at Building 332, the Plutonium Facility. Reducing the inventory of weapons-grade plutonium and other Special Nuclear Materials would reduce the source of exposure and would result in reduction of radiation doses to workers handling the material. It is estimated that reducing the administrative limit for plutonium from 700 kg to 200 kg would reduce the radiation dose incurred by workers in Building 332 by about 10 to 15 person-rem, and would reduce the collective dose to all workers at LLNL from about 28.5 person-rem to a range of 13.5–18.5 person-rem. This corresponds to a reduction in the risk of fatal cancer from about 1 in 70 to a range of about 1 in 100 to 1 in 150. This is a beneficial impact.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 14.1.3 The combined administrative limit for tritium will be reduced from 300 g in one facility (Building 331) to 10 g total in three facilities (Buildings 298, 331, and 391). This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial.

While it is not possible to project precisely the reduction in potential radiation exposure as the quantity of tritium handled at the LLNL Livermore site is reduced, the potential for exposure to workers would also decrease.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 14.1.4 Decontamination and decommissioning of Buildings 212 and 292 would reduce long-term worker radiation exposure. This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial.

Building 292, which houses the Rotating Target Neutron Source Test Facility, would be decontaminated and restored; and Building 212, which housed the Rotating Target Neutron Source prototype, would be decontaminated, restored, and converted to other uses.

DOE Order 5480.11 requires that radiation doses to workers be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) and that they not exceed 5 rem per year effective dose equivalent. Although the workers engaged in the decontamination activities would potentially be exposed to ionizing radiation, the conditions would not exceed health standards nor present an undue potential risk of health-related accidents.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 14.2.1 Upgrade and operation of the Flash X-Ray accelerator (FXR) would add a potential source for external radiation exposure of workers, but the exposures would remain as low as reasonably achievable and within regulatory guidelines. This is a less than significant impact.

There are essentially no measurable personnel radiation doses associated with the current operation of the Flash X-Ray accelerator at LLNL Site 300. With the implementation of standard design techniques there should be no measurable radiation doses associated with any planned upgrade to the Flash X-Ray accelerator.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 14.3.1 Over the next 10 years, SNL, Livermore will phase out tritium operations at the Tritium Research Laboratory and convert the building to other uses. This could reduce radiation exposure to workers. This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial.

Reduction to zero of the tritium inventory at the Tritium Research Laboratory would reduce the potential radiation doses to workers due to tritium intake to zero. This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial because overall tritium exposure to workers would be reduced.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 14.3.2 Decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory would increase radiation exposure to decontamination workers. This is a less than significant impact.

The collective dose to the 10-worker decontamination team is estimated to be 2 to 3.3 person-rem per year for the 3-year decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory. These levels of exposure would be minimized by extensive worker training and practice, detailed planning, and the use of protective equipment, e.g., snorkels and bubble suits, where applicable.

The estimated individual radiation dose of 0.2 to 0.33 rem per year is well within the DOE guideline for worker safety of 5 rem per year per person. Therefore this is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Occupational Protection—Toxic Substances and Physical Hazards

Under the proposed action, DOE would construct a number of facilities at LLNL and SNL, Livermore. For purposes of the EIS/EIR, it is assumed that the percentage increase in the facilities' square footage would be accompanied by an assumed increase in the amounts of hazardous substances used and stored onsite.

The estimates of the increases in chemical inventories are summarized in Tables 4.15-1, 4.15-2, and 4.15-3 (see section 4.15). At the LLNL Livermore site, the FY 1992 chemical inventory is projected to be 210,000 gal of liquids and 2.3 million lb of solids; by the end of the 5- to 10-year period of the proposed action, these quantities may increase by 9 percent, or by 19,000 gal and 210,000 lb. The corresponding figures for LLNL Site 300 are, at present, 84,000 gal of liquids, 100,000 lb of solids, and 1.9 million cu ft of compressed gases, and are projected to increase by 9 percent, or by 7600 gal, 9000 lb, and 171,000 cu ft. The corresponding figures for SNL, Livermore are, at present, 3420 gal of liquids, 6320 lb of solids, and 190,000 cu ft of compressed gases, and are projected to increase by 6 percent, or by 210 gal, 380 lb, and 11,900 cu ft, respectively, at the end of 10 years. Physical hazards such as noise, electrical shock, and nonionizing radiation are also assumed to increase under the proposed action.

LLNL Livermore Site and LLNL Site 300

Some research and development work requires workers at LLNL to be exposed periodically to toxic materials and physical hazards in the workplace. An established health and safety program ensures that workers are informed about the potential hazards present in the workplace and how to avoid these hazards. Workplaces are also monitored to identify and control potential hazards and to ensure compliance with applicable laws regarding protection of worker safety.

Although additional quantities of chemicals are assumed to be used under the proposed action, worker exposures would not necessarily increase since the proposed action includes projects providing improved facilities for handling hazardous chemicals and controlling physical hazards. These include:

A Hazards Control Fire Science Facility.
Upgrading of the fire alarm system.
Enclosure of the system operation in the Building 322 Plating Facility.
Renovation of Building 321.
General upgrading of the electronic shop.
Replacement of fume hoods in Building 151.

In addition, the health and safety program would be implemented at all new facilities to ensure that worker exposures to physical hazards are adequately controlled.

Protection of workers at LLNL Site 300 is an integral part of the LLNL worker protection program. The proposed projects are assumed to result in approximately a 9 percent increase in usage of hazardous chemicals. However, this is not expected to increase worker exposure since these facilities would include improved facilities for handling toxic chemicals and controlling physical hazards, such as the Explosives Waste Treatment Facility and the Contained Firing Facility.

SNL, Livermore

Workers at SNL, Livermore are potentially exposed to a variety of toxic substances and physical hazards. The frequency of these exposures depends upon the type of research being performed and the necessary equipment and chemicals. The proposed projects may involve additional usage of hazardous chemicals, which are assumed to increase by 6 percent. However, it is not likely that worker exposure would increase since the proposed actions would include facilities to better handle hazardous chemicals and control physical hazards, including a new Environmental Safety and Health facility.

Standards of Significance

The standards of significance used to evaluate the impact of toxic substances and physical hazards on occupational health under the proposed action are the same as those outlined in the Occupational Protection—Radiation Protection section.

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 14.1.5 Overall site usage of toxic substances and physical hazards is assumed to increase by 9 percent under the proposed action. This is a less than significant impact.

Although the use of additional quantities of chemicals may occur for the proposed action, it would not necessarily result in additional worker exposures since the modernized and new facilities would improve methods for handling hazardous chemicals and controlling physical hazards. Further, all work activities will continue to be conducted in compliance with laws and regulations concerning worker safety. Thus the impacts of this action are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 14.1.6 The proposed Hazards Control Fire Science Facility would add new laboratories and control rooms, which will reduce worker exposure. This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial.

The proposed Hazards Control Fire Science Facility would result in improved capabilities for the LLNL Fire Department as a result of improved facilities and work areas. This expansion would also allow the Fire Department to potentially improve and/or develop new plans or methodologies for dealing with fires or other related hazards. Therefore, the impact of this proposed facility is beneficial.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 14.1.7 Upgrading the fire alarm system would improve the capability of responding to a fire. This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial.

Upgrading the fire alarm system would not decrease the frequency of fires at the facility; however, improved notification and detection may decrease the severity of fires and the number of injuries resulting from fires.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 14.1.8 The proposed tightening of controls and enclosure of the system operations in the Building 322 Plating Facility; renovation of Building 321, which houses all of the general and precision machining operations and the weld shop; and general upgrading of the electronic shop, including closed loop processing for the wire board facility, would decrease worker exposures to organic and inorganic toxic substances. This is a less than significant impact any may be beneficial.

Improvements to controls and enclosure of systems in Building 322 will decrease worker exposure to toxic substances by reducing the emission of these substances into the work space. Renovations of Building 321, such as closed loop processing, will minimize worker exposure to toxic substances by reducing emissions to the work space. These planned projects would result in a less than significant impact and may be beneficial.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 14.1.9 Replacement of the fume hoods in Building 151 would decrease worker exposure to toxic substances. This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial.

Fume hood replacement in Building 151 will decrease worker exposure to toxic substances by reducing emissions to the work space from work conducted in the fume hoods.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 14.2.2 The high explosive waste open burning facility would be replaced with a new Explosive Waste Treatment Facility. This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial.

Improvements could reduce worker exposure to chemicals and physical hazards relative to the facilities that are currently being used.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 14.3.2 Construction of a proposed Environmental Safety and Health facility at SNL, Livermore, with a new hazardous waste handling facility for temporary storage of toxic and mixed waste, would replace the current waste handling facility and would reduce worker exposure. This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial.

Improvements could reduce potential worker exposure relative to the facilities that are currently being used for this purpose.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—OCCUPATIONAL PROTECTION

Impact 14.4.1 The collective radiation dose to workers at LLNL and SNL, Livermore would decrease from current levels. This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial.

Under the proposed action, the collective radiation dose to workers at LLNL and SNL, Livermore would decrease from current levels because of projected decreases in the quantities of tritium, modifications in design of Building 332, the Plutonium Facility, and a reduction in the plutonium administrative limit for the combined Buildings 332 and 334 from 700 kg to 200 kg, targeted for completion during FY 1993. All work activities at LLNL and SNL, Livermore would continue to comply with applicable DOE orders, laws, and regulations for the radiation protection of workers.

Decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory at SNL, Livermore would result in a collective dose of 6 to 10 person-rem to the 10-worker decontamination team for the 3-year project. The estimated individual radiation dose of 0.2 to 0.33 rem per year is well within the DOE guideline for worker safety of 5 rem per year per person.

Currently, there are no projected developments in the study area that are known to involve the handling of large quantities of radionuclides or sources of ionizing radiation. If facilities were to be developed that handled radionuclides or sources of ionizing radiation, the radiation doses to their workers would have to meet the regulatory limits specified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or other appropriate federal or state regulatory agencies. Because such facilities cannot operate unless they meet these regulations and because these regulations set limits to protect workers and the public, the cumulative impact is considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Occupational Protection-Toxic Substances

Impact 14.4.2 Workers at LLNL and SNL, Livermore would continue to be exposed to approximately the same level of risk from toxic substances in the workplace as under current conditions. This is a less than significant impact.

Under the proposed action, workers at LLNL and SNL, Livermore would be exposed to approximately the same level of risks from toxic substances in the workplace as under current conditions because the projected increase in use of toxic substances is offset by improvements in facilities to reduce occupational risks. LLNL and SNL, Livermore will continue to comply with all applicable DOE orders, laws, and regulations concerning worker protection.

There are no known projected developments in the area that are known to involve the handling of toxic substances. If such facilities were developed, they would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations concerning worker protection. Because such facilities cannot operate unless they meet these regulations and because these regulations set limits to protect workers and the public, the cumulative impact is considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

5.1.15 SITE CONTAMINATION

The following section analyzes impacts to contaminated soils and sediments, surface water, and ground water from the proposed action, and identifies mitigation actions for these impacts. For the purpose of this EIS/EIR, soils and sediments discussed below include surficial soils, both unconsolidated and consolidated sediments, and unsaturated bedrock. Hydrologic impacts not related to surface and ground water quality are presented in section 5.1.9.

LLNL Livermore Site

LLNL has identified over 17 areas with known soil/sediment contamination at the LLNL Livermore site (see section 4.17). An additional 17 areas are currently under investigation for potential sources of contaminants. Contaminants in soils include volatile organic compounds, fuel hydrocarbons, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, metals, and tritium. The 9 percent growth projected under the proposed action includes proposed projects, and operational modifications that may disturb soils and sediments previously contaminated by one or more of the above constituents.

LLNL Site 300

LLNL has identified 10 areas where soil contamination has occurred at LLNL Site 300. Contaminants detected include volatile organic compounds, fuels, aromatic hydrocarbons, metals, radionuclides, and high explosive compounds. The 9 percent projected growth under the proposed action includes proposed projects, and operational modifications that may disturb soils and sediments previously contaminated by one or more of the above constituents.

SNL, Livermore

SNL, Livermore has evaluated nine source areas for the presence of soil and sediment contamination at SNL, Livermore. The contaminants detected include volatile organic compounds, fuel hydrocarbons, oil and grease, and metals. The 6 percent projected growth under the proposed action for SNL, Livermore includes construction of three new facilities and several operation/maintenance upgrades (including fire water system and natural gas system upgrades) that may involve movement of soils and sediments.

Standards of Significance

For this EIS/EIR, a significant adverse site contamination impact is any effect of the proposed action upon contaminated soils and ground water that might:

Create a potential public health hazard or pose a hazard to people or to animal or plant populations in the area affected;
Result in unsafe conditions for employees or for surrounding neighborhoods;
Cause concentrations of radionuclides in water and air that exceed the appropriate DOE Derived Concentration Guidelines;
Substantially degrade water quality by exceeding applicable water quality standards;
Contaminate a public water supply; or
Substantially degrade or deplete ground water resources.

Unless otherwise noted, all identified impacts are considered significant, and the proposed mitigation measures following each impact discussion will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.

IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 15.1.1 The proposed action may result in exposure of workers to site contaminants, or in the release of site contaminants to the air or surface water. This is a less than significant impact.

The projected growth of developed space by 9 percent has the potential to impact contaminated areas at the LLNL Livermore site. As currently cited, proposed projects would impact areas of known volatile organic compounds and tritium contaminants. Areas surrounding Buildings 141 and 321, which are scheduled for upgrade and retrofit, have been identified as having volatile organic compound concentrations greater than 10 ppb in soils (Figure 4.17-4). If proposed construction activities at these buildings or at other contamination sites disturb contaminated soils, low concentrations of volatile organic compounds could be released into the air or to surface water, or workers could come in contact with contaminated soils. However, the levels of these contaminants would not cause exposures above occupational limits.

Before any construction begins that has the potential to disturb areas of known soil contamination, an assessment of health risks and a health and safety plan will be prepared. Evaluation of health risks associated with remediation was considered in the Baseline Public Health Assessment (Thorpe et al., 1990). Measures in that assessment will ensure protection of human health and the environment during construction activities. Where there is potential for human contact with contaminated soils or sediments, the health and safety plan will specify procedures to be followed to protect human health.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 15.1.2 The proposed action may result in exposure of people to volatile organic compounds, or in the release of volatile organic compounds to the air. This is a less than significant impact.

Past handling and storage of hazardous materials at the LLNL Livermore site have resulted in the contamination of the subsurface environment. Volatile organic compounds in ground water occur in relatively large but diffuse plumes that underlie about 85 percent of the LLNL Livermore site and a total area in the vicinity of about 1.4 sq miles (Isherwood et al., 1990). Volatile organic compounds have migrated offsite into two areas: approximately 2500 ft west of Vasco Road and about 800 ft south of the southeastern portions of the LLNL Livermore site onto SNL, Livermore property (see section 4.17.2.3). A third plume of volatile organic compounds located in the northwest part of LLNL originates on private property (Thorpe et al., 1990; Dresen et al., 1991). The organic solvents were probably released from operations conducted at the site in the 1940s by the Livermore Naval Air Station and from subsequent releases from LLNL activities. Volatile organic compound vapors from ground water remediation will be treated using either catalytic oxidation or activated carbon to oxidize halogenated solvents. All volatile organic compound emissions will be within Bay Air Quality Management District emission requirements.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 15.1.3 The proposed action may result in exposure of people to chromium and tritium, or in the release of chromium and tritium to the air. This is a less than significant impact.

Two chromium plumes have also been identified in the northwest corner of the LLNL Livermore site (Dresen et al., 1991). One chromium plume is located in the vicinity of the west traffic circle. A smaller chromium plume extends northwesterly an undetermined distance offsite from the northwestern corner of the LLNL Livermore site (Dresen et al., 1991) This chromium plume may either originate on private property and be the result of industrial activities or result from natural processes. Soil concentrations are less than soluble threshold limit concentrations. In addition to the solvents and chromium, tritium has also been found at some locations. LLNL Livermore will shut down any treatment system that emits chromium to the atmosphere at concentrations greater than the limit acceptable by the Bay Air Quality Management District. This limit has not been presently defined. Similarly, the LLNL Livermore site will shut down any treatment system that emits tritium to the atmosphere at a rate predicted to cause exposure of greater than 10 millirem (mrem) per year according to the Federal Standard in the Clean Air Act (Dresen et al., 1991).

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 15.2.1 The proposed action may result in exposure of people to site contaminants, or in the release of site contaminants to the air or surface water. This is a less than significant impact.

The projected growth of developed space by 9 percent has the potential to impact contaminated areas at LLNL Site 300. Under the proposed action as currently cited, construction of a new water line and installation of new Tank 11 may disturb trichlorethylene-contaminated soil in this area (concentrations less than 500 ppb), possibly resulting in minor human exposure below occupational limits.

Before any construction begins that has the potential to disturb areas of known soil contamination, an assessment of health risks and a health and safety plan will be prepared. Measures delineated in this assessment would ensure protection of human health and the environment during construction activities. Where there is a potential for human contact with contaminated soils or sediments, the health and safety plan will specify procedures to be followed to protect human health.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

None of the activities included in the proposed action are located in areas of known contamination. No adverse site contamination impacts are expected.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative site contamination impacts can result when multiple events combine and exacerbate the extent or significance of contaminants. Soil and ground water contamination have been detected at a number of areas at the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore.

The potential for future intensification of contamination, however, has been substantially reduced because of changes in effluent control procedures and implementation of restoration procedures by the Laboratories.

DOE has established the Environmental Restoration Program to provide funding and technical support for cleanup of areas contaminated with hazardous and/or radioactive materials.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE

Impact 15.4.1 The cumulative site contamination setting may result in low concentrations of contaminants impacting the use of ground water. This is a less than significant impact.

The beneficial use of ground water as a source of drinking water has been impacted in the combined area of all the plumes and the cumulative impacts to the local ground water resource could be significant and adverse for over 50 years. If other unknown areas of ground water contamination exist near potential receptors, both onsite and offsite (such as near the City of Livermore municipal water supply wells), or if additional spills occur at the Laboratories and reach ground water, the impacts could generally be additive. Based on the very low predicted concentrations that might arrive at municipal well locations, it is unlikely that a significant cumulative impact would result from this accumulation.

Administrative controls on local ground water use should continue to be implemented in areas currently impacted and potentially impacted by the contaminant plume and by potential future contributions. Based on the current availability of municipal water, state and local administrative controls regarding ground water use, and the fact that the ground water is currently not used as a drinking water source by the LLNL Livermore site, the adverse cumulative impacts under the proposed action would be less than significant. LLNL will continue to work closely with appropriate regulatory agencies and local property owners to ensure that administrative controls regarding limiting ground water use are implemented during the remediation period.

As discussed in section 4.11.2, ground water in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site is generally not suitable for use as drinking water without treatment, and is not suitable for some agricultural purposes because of either high levels of naturally occurring constituents (such as boron or total dissolved solids), or the presence of high levels of constituents introduced by agricultural and/or historic industrial activities (such as nitrates). The volatile organic and inorganic plumes emanating from the LLNL Livermore site and adjacent private properties further limit the beneficial use of the local ground water resource.

Cumulative impacts could result from the combined additive effect of water level declines due to drought conditions, from remedial ground water extraction under the proposed action, and from local domestic or agricultural pumping. Lower water levels could further limit the effectiveness of remedial pumping by extending the time required for cleanup, particularly if further regional development of irrigation water sources occurs. Lower water levels could also be accompanied by a reduction in water quality.

LLNL has conducted an extensive environmental restoration program to investigate the level and extent of the contamination and to remediate the contaminated areas. This remediation, combined with improved effluent control procedures and systems, would reduce the levels and extent of the contamination and thus prevent future cumulative impacts.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300

Impact 15.4.2 The proposed action may result in cumulative impacts through exposure of people to site contaminants, or in the release of site contaminants to the air or surface water. This is a less than significant impact.

Three areas at LLNL Site 300 have been contaminated, primarily with mixed waste from the detonation of test assemblies containing depleted uranium, thorium, and tritium and toxic materials such as lead, beryllium, barium, copper, and vanadium. Liquids containing high explosive fines, solvents, metals, and tritium have also been released from unlined evaporation ponds.

Volatile organic compounds, tritium, and in isolated cases high explosive compounds have impacted ground water in both perched and shallow aquifers at LLNL Site 300. Movement of contamination in the bedrock aquifers discussed in section 4.17 does carry implications for ground water resources and for potential land use. Ground water is the only identified source of water that could be available to supply future land development activities in the areas surrounding LLNL Site 300. Contamination of the ground water would severely curtail the amount and types of development activities that could occur in the future. If the contamination were allowed to continue to move through the bedrock aquifers, there would be an ever-increasing area with limitations on the ground water resources, and these limitations would affect potential land use. Although LLNL Site 300 is located in a recharge area of the San Joaquin Basin, most of the affected aquifers are hydraulically isolated and/or physically remote from the regional aquifers in the San Joaquin Valley; therefore, significant cumulative impacts are limited to the local ground water resource.

Three areas that require remediation are the:

Environmental Test Area.
General Services Area.
High Explosives Process Area.

Other areas being investigated and evaluated for potential remediation at LLNL Site 300 include:

Landfill Pit 6.
Landfill Pit 8.
Landfill Closures at Pit 1 and 7.
The Tritium Project.
Building 865, Advanced Test Accelerator experimental project.

Trichloroethylene remediation has begun through an ongoing pilot remedial program. Contaminated soil from leaking underground storage tanks is being remediated using bioremediation. Mitigation of the tritium contamination is being addressed by the installation of a permanent plastic cover over the tritium source areas in the soil to isolate the source from further migration. The situation will also continue to be monitored.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

Impact 15.4.3 The proposed action will have an overall beneficial impact on ground water resources and land use.

Implementation of proposed remedial actions at LLNL Site 300 would have an overall beneficial impact on ground water resources and land use limitations. The estimated duration of ground water extraction and treatment at LLNL Site 300 is about 30 to 50 years. Limitations on ground water use would result for several decades while tritium activities in ground water naturally decline. During the 30- to 50-year time period, the local beneficial uses of the deeper aquifers within the plume areas would be significantly impacted and therefore the cumulative impacts would continue to be significant until cleanup below regulatory limits is achieved.

Current and future activities at LLNL Site 300 are being and will be conducted in a manner that minimizes the potential for inadvertent releases into the soil and ground water. Prevention of future releases and remediation of contaminated sites would reduce future levels of contamination and reduce cumulative impacts.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE

Impact 15.4.4The proposed action may result in exposure of people to site contaminants, or in the release of site contaminants to the air or surface water. This is a less than significant impact.

From 1942 until 1947, the U.S. Navy disposed of trash and construction debris at the southern end of the Navy property, the location of the present SNL, Livermore Navy Landfill. Following two separate investigations there does not appear to be contaminated soil or ground water at the Navy Landfill site.

In February 1975, a 59,500-gal spill of No. 2 diesel fuel oil resulted from the accidental puncture of an underground transfer line and the oil infiltrated the soil to 100 feet. Ground water has not been significantly impacted to date.

In addition, six miscellaneous areas located throughout the SNL, Livermore site have been investigated, including: Arroyo Seco; the former trash dump at the edge of Arroyo Seco on the north side of Sandia Crossing; the fire extinguisher training area; the storage area adjacent to Building 918; the decontamination and waste storage area associated with Building 961; and a burn pit within the Navy Landfill. Investigation findings concluded that no organic or inorganic contaminants above RCRA action levels were present. These results have been submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and no further action at these locations by SNL, Livermore is expected.

Current and future activities at SNL, Livermore are being and will be conducted in a manner that minimizes the potential for inadvertent releases into the soil and ground water. Prevention of future releases and remediation of contaminated sites would reduce future levels of contamination and reduce cumulative impacts.

Mitigation Measure: None warranted.

5.1.16 PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS SUMMARY

The individual and cumulative impacts of the proposed action and potential mitigation measures are summarized in Table 5.1.16-1 for LLNL and in Table 5.1.16-2 for SNL, Livermore. The information in these tables is consistent with the impacts discussed in more detail in sections 5.1.1 through 5.1.15. It is compiled to provide a concise yet comprehensive review of these environmental impacts and associated mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are actions that are over and above those already contained in the proposed action and/or required by state or federal laws and regulations.

These mitigation measures are in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program document, which details responsibilities for implementating and reporting the progress of the mitigation of impacts associated with the proposed action.

Table 5.1.16-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Issue Area and Impacts	Level of Significance*	Mitigation Measures	Level of Significance with Mitigation
Land Uses and Applicable Plans
LLNL Livermore site 1.1.1 The proposed action would result in additional development at the site to be used for the same types of uses as existing facilities.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
1.1.2 DOE acquisition of a portion of East Avenue would alter a segment of this road's use from a local government–owned, unrestricted access roadway to a federal government–owned, possibly restricted access roadway.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
LLNL Site 300 1.2.1 The proposed action would result in additional development at the site to be used for the same types of uses as existing facilities.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Socioeconomic Characteristics
LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 2.1.1 Total employment in Alameda and San Joaquin counties would increase with the implementation of the proposed action.	Beneficial	None warranted	Same
2.1.2 An increase in population level and housing demand within Alameda County would occur as a result of the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
2.1.3 An increase in population and housing demand within the City of Livermore would occur as a result of the proposed action.	Potentially significant and unavoidable	Mitigation measures to reduce impacts on housing availability in the City of Livermore are beyond the authority of DOE or UC.	Same
2.1.4 An increase in population level and housing demand within the City of Pleasanton would occur as a result of the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
2.1.5 An increase in population level and housing demand in San Joaquin County would occur as a result of the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
2.1.6 An increase in population level and housing demand within the City of Tracy would occur as a result of the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
2.1.7 The proposed action would generate additional employment income and expenditures in the region.	Beneficial	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Socioeconomic Characteristics
2.4.1 The proposed action would contribute to cumulative housing demand in the region.	Significant and unavoidable	Mitigation measures to reduce impacts on housing availability in the region are beyond the authority of DOE or UC.	Same
Community Services
LLNL Livermore site 3.1.1 The proposed action could result in a need for increased onsite fire protection personnel, equipment, and/or facilities.	Less than significant	3.1.1 The LLNL Fire Department will continue to review current operations at the LLNL Livermore site against National Fire Protection Standards on an annual basis. If additional needs are identified, personnel, equipment, and facilities would be increased or upgraded as necessary.	Same
3.1.2 Implementation of the proposed action would potentially result in an increased demand for fire protection services within the mutual aid network.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
3.1.3 Implementation of the proposed action would potentially result in a need for increased security personnel and/or equipment onsite.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
3.1.4 Implementation of the proposed action at the LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 would increase the demand for school services in the region.	(Potentially) Significant and unavoidable	3.1.4 Impacts to area schools (beyond DOE's participation in the federal government's Impact Aid Program) cannot be mitigated by DOE or UC.	Same
3.1.5 The proposed action would result in an increased demand for nonhazardous solid waste disposal services at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
LLNL Site 300 3.2.1 The proposed action would potentially result in a need for increased fire protection personnel, equipment, and/or facilities onsite.	Less than significant	3.2.1 The LLNL Fire Department will continue to review current operations at LLNL Site 300 against National Fire Protection standards on an annual basis. If additional needs are identified, personnel, equipment, and facilities would be increased or upgraded as necessary.	Same
3.2.2 The proposed action would potentially result in an increased demand for offsite fire protection services within the mutual aid network.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
3.2.3 The proposed action would result in an increased demand for nonhazardous solid waste disposal services at the Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill.	Significant and unavoidable	3.2.3 LLNL will continue to implement solid waste reduction and recycling strategies at LLNL Site 300.	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Community Services
LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 3.4.1 Cumulative development would increase demand for school services in the region.	Significant and unavoidable	None available to DOE and UC.	Same
3.4.2 Cumulative development would increase the demand for nonhazardous solid waste disposal services at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill in Alameda County.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
3.4.3 Cumulative development in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300 would increase the demand for nonhazardous solid waste disposal services at the Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill.	(Potentially) Significant and unavoidable	Impacts to solid waste disposal services cannot be fully mitigated by DOE or UC.	Same
Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Resources
LLNL Livermore site 4.1.1 Impacts to prehistoric resources are unlikely to result from the proposed action.	Less than significant	4.1.1 The Laboratory would require LLNL employees and contractors to report any evidence of cultural resources unearthed during development excavation at the LLNL Livermore site. An archaeologist would assess any unearthed resources at the construction site. If necessary, construction would be stopped to preclude disturbance of any cultural resources, conduct testing, and recommend mitigation measures in accordance with DOE and CEQA guidelines.	Same
4.1.2 Implementation of the proposed action has the potential to adversely affect important historic resources on the LLNL Livermore site.	Less than significant	4.1.2 Following completion of the Section 106 review process (i.e., compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act), the cultural resource management plan outlining the methodology for managing identified historic resources at the LLNL Livermore site would be made available to the public. In addition, management and mitigation activities implemented at the LLNL Livermore site would be reported annually.	Same
LLNL Site 300 4.2.1 Impacts to prehistoric resources at LLNL Site 300 are unlikely to result from the proposed action.	Less than significant	4.2.1 The Laboratory would require LLNL employees and contractors to report any evidence of cultural resources unearthed during development excavation at LLNL Site 300. An archaeologist would assess any unearthed resources at the construction site. If necessary, construction would be stopped to preclude disturbance of any cultural resources, conduct testing, and recommend mitigation measures in accordance with DOE and CEQA guidelines.	Same
4.2.2 Potential impacts to historic resources at LLNL Site 300 could occur as a result of the proposed action.	Less than significant	4.2.2A Following completion of the Section 106 review process (i.e., compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act), the cultural resource management plan outlining the methodology for managing identified historic resources at LLNL Site 300 would be made available to the public. In addition, management and mitigation activities implemented at LLNL Site 300 would be reported annually.	Same
		4.2.2B During construction activities at LLNL Site 300, access to any identified prehistoric or historic site located near the Area of Potential Effect, but not directly impacted by construction, would be restricted by means of stakes and flagging or warning fences.
		4.2.2C Monitoring during grading would be conducted in areas where historic resources are determined to exist within the Area of Potential Effect.
Cumulative Impacts—Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Resources
LLNL Livermore site 4.4.1 Cumulative impacts to prehistoric resources could result from regional development in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore.	(Potentially) Significant	4.4.1 The impacts of the proposed action will be mitigated as set forth in Mitigation Measures 4.1.1. Impacts to prehistoric resources by other projects within the identified cumulative impact study area, but outside the boundaries of the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites, cannot be mitigated by DOE or UC.	Same
4.4.2 Cumulative impacts to historic resources could result from regional development in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore.	(Potentially) Significant	4.4.2 The impacts of the proposed action will be mitigated as set forth in Mitigation Measures 4.1.2. Impacts to historic resources by other projects within the identified cumulative impact study area, but outside the boundaries of the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites, cannot be mitigated by DOE or UC.	Same
LLNL Site 300 4.4.3 Cumulative impacts to prehistoric resources could result from regional development in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300.	(Potentially) Significant	4.4.3 The impacts of the proposed action would be mitigated as set forth in Mitigation Measure 4.2.1. Impacts to prehistoric resources by other projects within the identified cumulative impact study area, but outside the boundaries of the LLNL Site 300, cannot be mitigated by DOE or UC.	Same
4.4.4 Cumulative impacts to historic resources could result from regional development in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300.	(Potentially) Significant	4.4.4 The impacts of the proposed action would be mitigated as set forth in Mitigation Measures 4.2.2A, B, and C. Impacts to historic resources by other projects within the identified cumulative impact study area, but outside the boundaries of LLNL Site 300, cannot be fully mitigated by DOE or UC.	Same
Aesthetics and Scenic Resources
LLNL Livermore site 5.1.1 New development under the proposed action would involve construction of additional buildings and upgrading or replacement of other buildings and infrastructure at the LLNL Livermore site, with possible impacts on the visual quality of the Laboratory.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
5.1.2 The proposed action would alter views from roadways designated as scenic resources under plans and policies of the County of Alameda and the City of Livermore.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
LLNL Site 300 5.2.1 New development under the proposed action includes several construction projects and facility improvements at LLNL Site 300, with possible impacts on the visual quality of the site.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
5.2.2 Implementation of the proposed action at LLNL Site 300 would alter views from roadways designated as scenic resources under plans and policies of the County of San Joaquin or the County of Alameda.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Aesthetics and Scenic Resources
LLNL Livermore site 5.4.1 Buildout of approved and proposed developments in the vicinity of the Laboratory would potentially alter the visual quality of the region.	(Potentially) Significant	Measures to mitigate this impact are outside the authority of DOE or UC.	Same
LLNL Site 300 5.4.2 Buildout of approved and proposed developments in the vicinity of the Laboratories would potentially alter the visual quality of the region.	(Potentially) Significant	Measures to mitigate this impact are outside the authority of DOE or UC.	Same
Geologic Resources and Hazards
LLNL Livermore site 6.1.1 Siting of facilities in areas subject to strong ground shaking at the LLNL Livermore site may result in structural damage and increased exposure of people to risks associated with ground shaking.	Significant	6.1.1A All buildings and facilities under the proposed action at the LLNL Livermore site, including retrofits, would be built or modified (or retrofitted) according to established seismic design criteria based on their hazard ranking and location as stated in DOE Order 5481.1B (see Appendix I).	Less than significant
	Significant	6.1.1B Engineering and administrative measures would be taken to anticipate and prevent releases of hazardous substances resulting from strong ground shaking at any given facility. Discussions of these measures are included in Appendix D.	Less than significant
6.1.2 Expansive or shrink-swell soils and soils with low permeability could adversely affect proposed action development projects at the LLNL Livermore site.	Significant	6.1.2 Site-specific geotechnical investigations by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, a California Registered Geologist or a California Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical studies, would be performed for proposed structures. The recommendations of the geotechnical investigation regarding foundations and subterranean drainage would be included in project design.	Less than significant
LLNL Site 300 6.2.1 Siting of facilities in areas subject to strong ground shaking at LLNL Site 300 may result in structural damage and increased exposure of people to risks associated with ground shaking.	Significant	6.2.1A All buildings and facilities would be built according to established seismic design criteria based upon their hazard ranking and location as stated in DOE Order 5481.1B (see Appendix I).	Less than significant
	Significant	6.2.1B Engineering and administrative measures would be taken to anticipate and prevent releases of hazardous substances resulting from strong ground shaking at any given facility. Discussions of these measures are included in Appendix D and Appendix I.	Less than significant
6.2.2 Expansive or shrink-swell soils and soils with low permeability could adversely affect proposed action development projects at LLNL Site 300.	Significant	6.2.2 Site-specific geotechnical investigations by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, a California Registered Geologist or a California Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical studies, would be performed for proposed structures. The recommendations of the geotechnical investigation would include those regarding foundations and subterranean drainage and would be included in project design.	Less than significant
Cumulative Impacts—Geologic Resources and Hazards
LLNL Livermore site 6.4.1 Proposed development projects and population growth could expose people to geologic hazards.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
LLNL Site 300 6.4.2 Proposed development projects and population growth could expose people to geologic hazards.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Ecology
LLNL Livermore site 7.1.1 The proposed action would affect vegetation principally by clearing land for construction projects.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
7.1.2 The proposed action would affect wildlife principally by clearing land for construction projects.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
LLNL Site 300 7.2.1 The proposed action would affect vegetation (introduced grassland plant communities) principally by clearing land for construction projects.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
7.2.2 The proposed action would affect wildlife principally by clearing wildlife habitat for construction projects.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
7.2.3 The Contained Firing Facility would reduce noise-related impacts to wildlife.	Beneficial	None warranted	Same
7.2.4 The Contained Firing Facility would eliminate the potential impact to wildlife from flying debris.	Beneficial	None warranted	Same
7.2.5 The Cheap Access to Orbit Facility would result in noise impacts to wildlife because of the loud noise generated during testing.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
7.2.6 The proposed action would affect sensitive species principally by disrupting habitat for construction projects.	Significant	7.2.6A DOE and UC will enhance their current employee awareness program to reflect all biological mitigation measures. The employee awareness program will include all LLNL employees and contract personnel working at LLNL Site 300.	Less than significant
		7.2.6B DOE and UC will ensure that no construction-related activities occur within a 300-ft radius of known locations of elderberry bushes (see Figure F-18 in Appendix F). Elderberry bushes are habitat for the federally listed valley elderberry longhorn beetle.
		7.2.6C DOE and UC will evaluate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's fairy shrimp sampling protocol when published. The evaluation will focus on the need for additional sampling to ensure consistency between survey techniques described in section F.2.4.5 and those of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
		7.2.6D DOE and UC will continue to limit the use of sulfur cartridges and anticoagulant ground squirrel poisons such as fumarin, sevin, and diphazinone (except within the fenced surface impoundments on LLNL Site 300). Zinc phosphite, which is much less injurious to canids, will remain the rodenticide of choice. (This measure also applies to the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore.)
		7.2.6E Consistent with current practice, speed limits of 35 miles per hour or less at LLNL Site 300 will be maintained. Vehicle traffic will also be confined to existing roads (paved and unpaved) to the extent possible.
		7.2.6F Warning sounds will continue to be broadcast from each testing facility before a detonation. In addition to warning personnel working in the area, this broadcast would scare away birds, particularly raptors, from the explosion test site.
		7.2.6G To maintain and promote habitat diversity, DOE and UC will continue to exclude livestock grazing and will continue the annual controlled burning program on LLNL Site 300.
		7.2.6H DOE and UC will continue to protect the large-flowered fiddleneck population near the Drop Tower by maintaining the fence, controlling access, and prohibiting activities that may adversely impact the population. A second population is in a remote canyon at a distance from current or proposed activities and requires no additional protection.
		7.2.6I DOE and UC will continue to maintain the fire roads and disked areas in the same locations to the extent possible. After evaluation, where possible, duplicate roads paralleling other roads will be eliminated.
		7.2.6J Herbicide use will remain limited to areas around buildings and other facilities or eliminated, if possible.
		7.2.6K Consistent with current construction practices, all food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps will be disposed of in a closed container or removed from the construction site.
		7.2.6L Undisturbed areas (i.e., areas having minimal recent surface disturbance) that may be affected by proposed construction projects will be surveyed for dens of the San Joaquin kit fox no earlier than 60 days prior to the beginning of construction activities. The survey area will include a minimum 300-ft buffer zone around the proposed construction zone.
		For new fire trails, linear trenching, or the redisking of the fire break in the northeastern corner of LLNL Site 300, the buffer zone will cover 50 ft on either side of the right-of-way. In addition, a 50-ft buffer zone will be established around monitor well installations.
		Methods employed during these surveys will follow techniques acceptable to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989). Disturbed areas will not be surveyed because of the enhanced awareness program, however, personnel would be aware of the potential for kit fox at the site.
		Depending upon the results of the survey outlined in mitigative measure 7.2.6L, the following measures may be implemented.
		7.2.6M Consistent with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1989) recommendations, protective exclusion zones will be established around kit fox dens (see Table F-14 in Appendix F for kit fox den classifications) observed in the 300- or 50-ft buffer zone. These exclusion zones will be the following distances: Known kit fox dens=200 ft Pupping kit fox dens (dens with sign of pupping activity)=300 ft Potential kit fox dens=25 ft
		DOE and UC will restrict activities within these exclusion zones: only essential vehicle operation will be allowed, and construction, materials storage, or other types of surface-disturbing activity will be prohibited or minimized. New roads will be kept to a minimum and vehicle traffic will be restricted to roads that are necessary for construction. If it is impossible to maintain acceptable exclusion zones DOE and UC will consult the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game to modify exclusion zone dimensions or time restrictions. Alternative courses of action may also be taken (e.g., mitigation measures 7.2.6Q and 7.2.6R below).
		7.2.6N Any known and pupping kit fox dens found will be posted with a sign near the den entrance stating the presence of the sensitive resource. To ensure protection of these dens, fencing will be installed around each one following the exclusion distances specified above. The exclusion fencing will consist of large stakes (4- to 5-ft metal or 1×1-inch wooden stakes) connected with a heavy rope or cord, and will be maintained for the duration of the construction project. The exclusion area can be modified as described in measure 7.2.6M.
		Potential kit fox dens found within a proposed construction site buffer zone will have 2-ft wooden stakes with flagging placed at the den's entrance and will be maintained for the duration of the construction project.
		7.2.6O Monthly checks of known and pupping dens will be conducted to ensure that the signs, stakes, and fencing are still intact. Monitoring will be done as unobtrusively as possible, staying outside the exclusion zones.
		7.2.6P To prevent the kit fox (and other species of concern) from being injured or trapped during the construction phase of a project, excavated steep-walled holes or trenches greater than 2 ft deep will be covered with plywood at the close of each working day, or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they will be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals.
		7.2.6Q If potential kit fox dens would be unavoidably destroyed by construction or other related activities, the following procedures will be initiated prior to disturbance. The dens will be monitored by a trained kit fox biologist for 2 to 3 days to determine if they are being used by kit fox. Activity at the dens can be monitored by placing tracking medium at the den's entrance and by night spotlighting. If there is sign of kit fox activity, the dens will be observed for 2 to 3 more days to allow the animal to move to another den during its normal activities. If there is no activity, the den will be destroyed.
		7.2.6R If known kit fox dens occur within the areas of proposed disturbance or development, and impact to these resources is unavoidable, the following procedures will be implemented. Prior to the onset of construction and den destruction, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game will be notified in writing of the intent to destroy dens, and reasons will be provided why alternative courses of action are not possible. The dens will not be impacted until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are provided the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed action. These agencies may recommend alternative courses of action to avoid den destruction or reduce impacts.
		If given permission by these agencies, excavation of known kit fox dens may then proceed. When the den is thought to be unoccupied, the entrance can then be progressively plugged with loose dirt for several days to discourage the use of the den while still allowing resident animals to escape easily. When sign of activity at the den ceases and it is deemed safe to do so by a trained kit fox biologist, the den can be dug out with hand tools to a point where it is certain no kit fox is using the den. The den will be fully excavated and then filled with dirt and compacted to ensure that a kit fox cannot reenter the den during the construction period. If at any point a kit fox is thought to be using the den, the plugging or excavation activity will stop, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game will be contacted. All plugging and excavation efforts will be conducted by a trained kit fox biologist.
		If excavation of a pupping den is unavoidable, the plugging and excavation activities will not take place during the breeding season (January through June). Den monitoring and plugging activities will be fully documented and reported in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
		7.2.6S If construction activities impact known kit fox dens, then artificial dens may be installed at an agreed-upon location. LLNL will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game on the appropriate placement and design of artificial dens.
		Because the burrowing owl and American badger are state species of special concern, occur on LLNL Site 300, and may be impacted by the proposed action, the following mitigation measures will be undertaken coincident with kit fox activities.
		7.2.6T Undisturbed areas that might be affected by proposed construction projects will be surveyed (including a 300-ft buffer zone) for known burrows or dens of the burrowing owl and American badger no sooner than 60 days prior to the beginning of construction activities. For new fire trails, the buffer zone will cover 50 ft on either side of the right-of-way.
		7.2.6U If known dens are identified within the survey area, exclusion zones of 50 ft will be established and delineated.
		7.2.6V LLNL will restrict activities within these exclusion zones: only essential vehicle operation will be allowed, and construction materials storage, or other types of surface-disturbing activity, will be prohibited or minimized. New roads will be kept to a minimum and vehicle traffic will be restricted to roads that are necessary for construction. If it is impossible to maintain acceptable exclusion zones, LLNL will consult with the California Department of Fish and Game to modify exclusion zone dimensions.
		7.2.6W If known dens will be unavoidably impacted, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game will occur to determine acceptable procedures for destruction of the dens.
7.2.7 The Contained Firing Facility would reduce potential noise-related impacts on sensitive species.	Beneficial	None warranted	Same
7.2.8 The Contained Firing Facility would eliminate the potential impact to wildlife from flying debris.	Beneficial	None warranted	Same
7.2.9 The Cheap Access to Orbit Facility would result in potential noise impacts to sensitive species.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
7.2.10 The proposed action would result in the elimination of artificial wetlands as a result of a project designed to stop surface water runoff from onsite cooling towers.	Significant	7.2.10 The 0.5 acre of lost wetlands would be replaced pursuant to consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. One potential measure would be to use the artificial wetland vegetation that would likely be created in Corral Hollow Creek as a result of the ground water restoration project at LLNL Site 300 as mitigation for these lost wetlands. The ground water restoration project is an ongoing project at LLNL Site 300 that is part of continuing operations. See Appendix G, section G.5 for additional details regarding this mitigation option.	Less than significant
Cumulative Impacts—Ecology
7.4.1 Cumulative impacts to vegetation may result from regional development in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore.	(Potentially) Significant and unavoidable	7.4.1 Impacts to vegetation within the cumulative impact study area cannot be mitigated by DOE or UC.	Same
7.4.2 Cumulative impacts to vegetation may result from regional development in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
7.4.3 Cumulative impacts to sensitive species may result from development in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300.	(Potentially) Significant and unavoidable	7.4.3 The impacts of the proposed action will be mitigated as set forth under Impact 7.2.6. Impacts to sensitive species by other projects within the cumulative impact study areas cannot be mitigated by DOE or UC.	Same
7.4.4 Cumulative impacts to wetlands may result from regional development in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300.	(Potentially) Significant and unavoidable	7.4.4 The impacts of the proposed action will be mitigated as set forth under Impact 7.2.10. Impacts to wetlands by other projects within the cumulative impact study area cannot be mitigated by DOE or UC.	Same
Air Quality
LLNL Livermore site 8.1.1 Growth at the LLNL Livermore site would result in short-term impacts due to construction activities.	Significant and unavoidable	8.1.1 General construction practices at the LLNL Livermore site, including contract specifications, would require that fugitive emissions be reduced by means such as water spraying of roads and the wheels and lower portions of construction vehicles and covering exposed piles of excavated material.	Same
8.1.2 Assumed growth at the LLNL Livermore site under the proposed action would result in an increase of criteria pollutant emissions.	Significant and unavoidable	8.1.2 On a project-specific basis, the LLNL Livermore site will evaluate the feasibility of designing buildings to minimize the contribution of criteria pollutants to the offsite ambient concentrations.	Same
8.1.3 Assumed growth at the LLNL Livermore site under the proposed action would result in an increase of beryllium emissions.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
8.1.4 Assumed growth at the LLNL Livermore site under the proposed action would result in potential increases of toxic air contaminants.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
8.1.5 Assumed growth at the LLNL Livermore site under the proposed action would result in an increase in carbon monoxide emissions from mobile sources.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
8.1.6 Assumed growth at the LLNL Livermore site under the proposed action would result in an increase in nitrogen dioxide emissions from mobile sources.	Significant and unavoidable	8.1.6 Continue the existing LLNL programs to enhance, to the extent feasible, Transportation System Management programs that would revitalize and expand the vanpooling and ridesharing programs in an organized effort to reduce vehicle use and associated air emissions.	Same
8.1.7 The reduction in the administrative limit for tritium in Building 331 will be greater than the increase in the administrative limits for tritium in Buildings 298 and 391. The sum of the administrative limits for tritium in the three buildings will decrease from 300 g in Building 331 to a total of no more than 10 g in the three buildings (331, 298, 391). The reduction in the level of tritium operations would decrease releases of tritium into the environment.	Less than significant, may be beneficial	None warranted	Same
LLNL Site 300 8.2.1 Assumed growth at LLNL Site 300 under the proposed action would result in short-term impacts due to construction activities.	Significant and unavoidable	8.2.1 General construction practices at LLNL Site 300, including contract specifications, would require that fugitive emissions be reduced by means such as water spraying of roads and the wheels and lower portions of construction vehicles and covering exposed piles of excavated material.	Same
8.2.2 Construction of the Contained Firing Facility at LLNL Site 300 under the proposed action would result in decreased beryllium emissions from Building 801.	Beneficial	None warranted	Same
8.2.3 Growth at LLNL Site 300 would result in an increase in criteria pollutant emissions.	Significant and unavoidable	8.2.3 Mitigation measures for nitrogen dioxide, volatile organic compound, and PM10 emissions for the LLNL Livermore site identified in mitigation measure 8.1.2 would also be employed at LLNL Site 300.	Same
8.2.4 The Contained Firing Facility at LLNL Site 300 would essentially eliminate dispersion of uranium and any other constituent of explosive devices into the environment from Building 801.	Less than significant, may be beneficial	This is a beneficial impact and would require no mitigation	Same
8.2.5 Construction of the Explosives Waste Treatment Facility at LLNL Site 300 under the proposed action would result in the same or less air emissions.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
8.2.6 Resumed use of a small amount of tritium at the LLNL Site 300 firing tables would increase the potential release of radioactivity into the atmosphere. The releases would be limited and would comply with NESHAP.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Air Quality
8.4.1 Assumed growth under the proposed action at the Laboratory and surrounding communities would increase criteria pollutant emission.	Significant and unavoidable	None available. Mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant are beyond the authority of DOE and UC.	Same
8.4.2 Radiation exposures to the public from activities at LLNL and SNL, Livermore would decrease under the proposed action.	Less than significant, may be beneficial	None warranted	Same
8.4.3 Assumed growth under the proposed action at the Laboratories and the surrounding communities would increase toxic air contaminants.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Water
LLNL Livermore site 9.1.1 As a result of the proposed action, a 9 percent increase in gross square footage of developed space is assumed, which may result in impacts to surface water runoff and ground water recharge.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
LLNL Site 300 9.2.1 As a result of the proposed action, a 9 percent increase in gross square footage of developed space is assumed, which may result in impacts to surface water runoff and ground water recharge.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Water
LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore 9.4.1 Cumulative impacts from the proposed action and other regional development may impact surface and ground water quality.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
LLNL Site 300 9.4.2 Cumulative impacts from the proposed action and other regional development may impact surface and ground water quality.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Noise
LLNL Livermore site 10.1.1 Increases in construction-related noise could occur intermittently near the LLNL Livermore site as a result of the proposed action.	Less than significant	10.1.1 Construction equipment and vehicles at the LLNL Livermore site would be properly muffled to reduce noise impacts.	Same
10.1.2 Long-term increases in traffic-related noise levels in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site would occur as a result of the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
LLNL Site 300 10.2.1 Short-term increases in construction-related noise could occur near LLNL Site 300 as a result of the proposed action.	Less than significant	10.2.1 Construction equipment and vehicles at LLNL Site 300 would be properly muffled to reduce noise impacts.	Same
10.2.2 Long-term increases in noise from operations at LLNL Site 300 could result from the Cheap Access to Orbit project of the proposed action.	Less than significant	10.2.2 LLNL's weather and noise monitoring program at LLNL Site 300 will continue to restrict operations when peak impulse noise levels are predicted to exceed 126 dB in populated areas. The results will be documented in LLNL's publicly available annual Environmental Report.	Same
10.2.3 Long-term traffic-related noise levels along Corral Hollow Road would increase as a result of the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
10.2.4 Noise-sensitive receptors surrounding LLNL Site 300 could experience a reduction in noise from high explosives testing.	Beneficial	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Noise
LLNL Livermore site 10.4.1 The proposed action would contribute a small increment to cumulatively significant roadway noise levels that are expected to occur in the future along some roads in the study area.	Significant and unavoidable	The contribution to noise levels by the proposed action will be reduced by LLNL Mitigation Measure 11.1.2. However, incremental noise impacts would not be completely eliminated. Measures to reduce cumulative roadway noise levels resulting from other projects are beyond the authority of DOE or UC to implement.	Same
LLNL Site 300 10.4.2 The proposed action would contribute a small increment to cumulative, but less than significant, roadway noise levels that are expected to occur in the future along Corral Hollow Road.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Traffic
LLNL Livermore site 11.1.1 Short-term traffic impacts could result during construction activities on the Laboratory sites.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
11.1.2 Implementation of the proposed action would result in increased congestion along local roadways and at intersections in the vicinity of the Laboratories.	Less than significant	11.1.2 While no mitigation is required, LLNL would implement an expanded Transportation Systems Management Program to aid in reducing traffic congestion.	Same
11.1.3 Acquisition of a portion of East Avenue, and subsequent alteration of the traffic flow along this roadway segment, could affect traffic conditions in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
11.1.4 An increased demand on public transportation would occur.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
11.1.5 An increase in demand for parking at the LLNL Livermore site would occur.	(Potentially) Significant	11.1.5 LLNL would continue to monitor the parking supply at the LLNL Livermore site and schedule capital improvements as necessary to alleviate any parking stall deficiencies. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 11.1.2 would also decrease the need for parking.	Less than significant
LLNL Site 300 11.2.1 Traffic volumes along Corral Hollow Road and at the Corral Hollow Road/I-580 interchange would increase.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
11.2.2 An increase in demand for parking at LLNL Site 300 would occur.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Traffic
LLNL Livermore Site 11.4.1 Cumulative development in the area would result in an increase in traffic congestion along roadways in the vicinity of the site.	Significant and unavoidable	No measures are implementable by DOE or UC.	Same
11.4.2 Planned and proposed development in the cumulative study area would result in a cumulative increase in traffic congestion at certain intersections in the vicinity of the Laboratories.	Significant and unavoidable	No measures are implementable by DOE or UC.	Same
LLNL Site 300 11.4.3 Cumulative development would result in an increase in traffic congestion on roadways in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
11.4.4 Traffic congestion at the Corral Hollow Road/I-580 interchange would increase significantly under cumulative buildout in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300.	Significant and unavoidable	No measures are implementable by DOE or UC.	Same
Utilities and Energy
LLNL Livermore site 12.1.1 Growth at the LLNL Livermore site may result in increased water consumption.	Significant	12.1.1A LLNL would continue to reduce use of Hetch Hetchy and Zone 7 water for landscaping irrigation below 1989 levels.	Less than significant
		12.1.1B LLNL would continue to reduce blowdown in cooling towers to minimal operable levels.
		12.1.1C LLNL would limit car washing to only that which is essential.
		12.1.1D LLNL would use reclaimed ground water in place of potable water in cooling towers to the greatest extent feasible.
		12.1.1E LLNL would reassess new contracts for additional water-intensive landscaping (i.e., lawn and groundcover) and implement feasible conservation measures, including native, drought-resistant plants and drip versus spray irrigation.
		12.1.1F LLNL would monitor all water use to discourage waste or unnecessary use.
		12.1.1G LLNL would use reclaimed ground water in place of potable water for irrigation to the greatest extent possible.
		12.1.1H LLNL would continue the employee water conservation awareness program.
12.1.2 Growth at the LLNL Livermore site would result in increased electricity consumption.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
12.1.3 Total fuel consumption would increase at the LLNL Livermore Site as a result of the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
12.1.4 Retention tanks would reduce the potential for releases of radionuclides to the sewer.	Beneficial	None warranted	Same
12.1.5 An increase in the volume of sewage discharge would result from implementation of the proposed action at the LLNL Livermore site.	Significant	12.1.5 LLNL would evaluate and install, where feasible, process conservation devices or modifications to reduce water consumption. This would result in lower sewage discharges.	Less than significant
LLNL Site 300 12.2.1 Growth at LLNL Site 300 may result in increased water consumption.	Significant	12.2.1A LLNL would continue to reduce landscape irrigation below 1989 levels.	Less than significant
		12.2.1B LLNL would continue to reduce blowdown in cooling towers to minimal operable levels.
		12.2.1C LLNL would limit car washing to only that which is essential.
		12.2.1D LLNL would monitor all water use to discourage waste or unnecessary use.
12.2.2 Growth at LLNL Site 300 would result in increased electricity consumption.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
12.2.3 Total fuel consumption would increase at LLNL Site 300 as a result of the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
12.2.4 An increase in the volume of sewage discharge at LLNL Site 300 would result from the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
LLNL Livermore site 12.4.1 Cumulative development in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site would increase demand for and consumption of water.	Significant and unavoidable	Mitigation measures for the proposed action are set forth under Impact 12.1.1. No mitigation measures are available for other projects in the area.	Same
LLNL Site 300 12.4.2 Cumulative development in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300 would increase demand and consumption of water.	Significant and unavoidable	Mitigation measures for the proposed action are set forth under Impact 12.2.1. No mitigation measures are available for other projects in the area.	Same
LLNL Livermore site 12.4.4 Cumulative development at the LLNL Livermore site under the proposed action would increase electric power demand.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
LLNL Site 300 12.4.5 Cumulative development at LLNL Site 300 under the proposed action would increase electric power demand.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
LLNL Livermore site 12.4.7 The proposed action would impact sewage services together with other development in the service area.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Materials and Waste Management
LLNL Livermore site 13.1.1 Increased use of hazardous and radioactive materials would result in an increased number of shipments of materials to and from LLNL.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
13.1.2 Implementation of the proposed action may result in an increase in the generation of hazardous, radioactive, mixed, and medical waste at the LLNL Livermore site.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
13.1.3 Mixed waste generation may require onsite storage beyond storage limits prescribed by RCRA and could result in a need for additional storage capacity.	(Potentially) Significant and unavoidable	13.1.3A LLNL would continue to enhance its waste minimization policies and practices to reduce generation of mixed wastes at the source.	Less than significant
		13.1.3B When treatment, storage, and/or disposal options become available for these mixed wastes, LLNL would pursue those alternatives.
		13.1.3C LLNL would treat increased quantities of treatable low-level liquid mixed wastes at the wastewater treatment tank farm to reduce total volumes. In addition, the planned Mixed Waste Treatment Facility would be used to reduce the volume of combustible mixed wastes.
		13.1.3D If it appears that LLNL is approaching storage capacity limits, LLNL would apply for additional permitted capacity to accommodate storage until treatment, storage, and/or disposal become available.
13.1.4 Increased radioactive waste storage capability may be required under the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
13.1.5 Increased waste generation would result in an increased number of waste shipments.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
13.1.6 The Mixed Waste Treatment Facility is planned to provide treatment processes for mixed wastes with combustible organic constituents that are presently stored onsite and that have no disposal option.	Beneficial	None warranted	Same
13.1.7 The proposed Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility would replace the current waste processing facility, improving waste management capability.	Beneficial	None warranted	Same
13.1.8 Retention tank upgrades would reduce the potential for releases of radionuclides to the sewer.	Beneficial	None warranted	Same
LLNL Site 300 13.2.1 Increased use of hazardous and radioactive materials would result in an increased number of shipments or transfers of materials to and from LLNL Site 300.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
13.2.2 Implementation of the proposed action may result in an increase in the generation of radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and medical waste at LLNL Site 300.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
13.2.3 Increased radioactive waste storage capability may be required under the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
13.2.4 Increased waste generation would result in an increased number of waste shipments.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Materials and Waste Management
LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore 13.4.1 The projected growth of LLNL and SNL, Livermore, together with increased development in regional industrial areas, would result in an increased number of shipments of radioactive and hazardous materials.	Less than significant	None warranted. No mitigation measures are available for other projects in the area.	Same
13.4.2 Assumed growth at the Laboratories and at other waste-generating facilities may result in increased waste generation, treatment, and disposal.	Significant and unavoidable	13.4.2 Mitigation measures to prevent or reduce these cumulative impacts are beyond the authority of UC. DOE is addressing the issue on a national scale as part of a Programmatic EIS.	Same
13.4.3 Assumed growth at the Laboratories and surrounding facilities may result in increased hazardous and radioactive waste shipments in the area.	Significant and unavoidable	13.4.3 Mitigation measures to prevent or reduce these cumulative impacts are beyond the authority of UC. DOE is addressing the issue on a national scale as part of a Programmatic EIS.	Same
Occupational Protection
LLNL Livermore site 14.1.1 The planned upgrade of the Plutonium Facility would reduce external radiation exposures to workers by reducing the frequency and duration of exposures through design modifications that would provide additional shielding and ease of access to enhance the concept of "as low as reasonably achievable."	Less than significant, may be beneficial	None warranted	Same
14.1.2 Reduction of the administrative limit for plutonium in Building 332, the Plutonium Facility, would reduce the radiation exposure of workers handling plutonium.	Beneficial	None warranted	Same
14.1.3 The combined administrative limit for tritium will be reduced from 300 g in one facility (Building 331) to 10 g total in three facilities (Buildings 298, 331, and 391).	Less than significant, may be beneficial	None warranted	Same
14.1.4 Decontamination and decommissioning of Buildings 212 and 292 would reduce long-term worker radiation exposure.	Less than significant, may be beneficial	None warranted	Same
14.1.5 Overall site usage of toxic substances and physical hazards is assumed to increase by 9 percent under the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
14.1.6 The proposed Hazards Control Fire Science Facility would add new laboratories and control rooms, which will reduce worker exposure.	Less than significant, may be beneficial	None warranted	Same
14.1.7 Upgrading the fire alarm system would improve the capability of responding to a fire.	Less than significant, may be beneficial	None warranted	Same
14.1.8 The proposed tightening of controls and enclosure of the system operations in the Building 322 Plating Facility; renovation of Building 321, which houses all of the general and precision machining operations and the weld shop; and general upgrading of the electronic shop, including closed loop processing for the wire board facility, would decrease worker exposures to organic and inorganic toxic substances.	Less than significant, may be beneficial	None warranted	Same
14.1.9 Replacement of the fume hoods in Building 151 would decrease worker exposure to toxic substances.	Less than significant, may be beneficial	None warranted	Same
LLNL Site 300 14.2.1 Upgrade and operation of the Flash X-Ray accelerator (FXR) would add a potential source for external radiation exposure of workers, but the exposures would remain as low as reasonably achievable and within regulatory guidelines.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
14.2.2 The high explosive waste open burning facility would be replaced with a new Explosive Waste Treatment Facility.	Less than significant, may be beneficial	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Occupational Protection
14.4.1 The collective radiation dose to workers at LLNL and SNL, Livermore would decrease from current levels.	Less than significant, may be beneficial	None warranted	Same
14.4.2 Workers at LLNL and SNL, Livermore would continue to be exposed to approximately the same level of risk from toxic substances in the workplace as under current conditions.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Site Contamination
LLNL Livermore site 15.1.1 The proposed action may result in exposure of workers to site contaminants, or in the release of site contaminants to the air or surface water.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
15.1.2 The proposed action may result in exposure of people to volatile organic compounds, or in the release of volatile organic compounds to the air.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
15.1.3 The proposed action may result in exposure of people to chromium and tritium or the release of chromium and tritium to the air.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
LLNL Site 300 15.2.1 The proposed action may result in exposure of people to site contaminants, or in the release of site contaminants to the air or surface water.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Site Contamination
LLNL Livermore site 15.4.1 The cumulative site contamination setting may result in low concentrations of contaminants impacting the use of ground water.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
LLNL Site 300 15.4.2 The proposed action may result in cumulative impacts through exposure of people to site contaminants, or in the release of site contaminants to the air or surface water.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
15.4.3 The proposed action will have an overall beneficial impact on ground water resources and land use.	Beneficial	None warranted	Same

* In accordance with CEQA and the UC CEQA Guidelines, four descriptive categories are used in this EIS/EIR to discuss and analyze environmental impacts: less than significant, significant, significant and unavoidable, and beneficial. These determinations are used consistently throughout the EIS/EIR. Under NEPA, however, 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.

Table 5.1.16-2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore

Issue Area and Impacts	Level of Significance*	Mitigation Measures	Level of Significance After Mitigation
Land Uses and Applicable Plans
1.3.1 The proposed action would result in additional development at the site to be used for the same types of uses as existing facilities.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
1.3.2 DOE acquisition of a portion of East Avenue would alter a segment of this road's use from a local government–owned, unrestricted access roadway to a federal government–owned, possibly restricted access roadway.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Socioeconomic Characteristics
2.3.1 Total employment in Alameda County would increase with the implementation of the proposed action.	Beneficial	None warranted	Same
2.3.2 An increase in population level and housing demand within Alameda County would occur as a result of the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
2.3.3 An increase in population level and housing demand within the City of Livermore would occur as a result of the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
2.3.4 The proposed action would generate additional employment income and expenditures in the region.	Beneficial	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Socioeconomic Characteristics
2.4.1 The proposed action would contribute to cumulative housing demand in the region.	Significant and unavoidable	Mitigation measures to reduce impacts on housing availability in the region are beyond the authority of DOE or UC.	Same
Community Services
3.3.1 The proposed action would potentially increase the demand for fire protection and emergency services at SNL, Livermore.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
3.3.2 The proposed action would potentially increase the demand for security services to provide adequate protection at SNL, Livermore.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
3.3.3 The proposed action would result in additional demand for school services in the region.	Less than significant	3.3.3 DOE will continue to participate in the federal government's Impact Aid Program, which contributes funds to the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District to compensate for impacts to the district resulting from the provision of school services to pupils with at least one parent employed on federal lands.	Same
3.3.4 The proposed action would result in an increase in demand for nonhazardous solid waste disposal services at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Community Services
3.4.1 Cumulative development would increase demand for school services in the region.	Significant and unavoidable	None available to DOE and UC	Same
3.4.2 Cumulative development would increase the demand for nonhazardous solid waste disposal services at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill in Alameda County.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Prehistoric and Historic Resources
4.3.1 Impacts to prehistoric or historic resources at SNL, Livermore are unlikely to result from the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted.	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Prehistoric and Historic Resources
4.4.1 Cumulative impacts to prehistoric resources could result from regional development in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore.	(Potentially) Significant	4.4.1 The impacts of the proposed action will be mitigated as described in Mitigation Measures 4.1.1. Impacts to prehistoric resources by other projects within the identified cumulative impact study area, but outside the boundaries of the LLNL, Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites, cannot be fully mitigated by DOE or UC.	Same
4.4.2 Cumulative impacts to historic resources could result from regional development in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore.	(Potentially) Significant	4.4.2 The impacts of the proposed action will be mitigated as set forth in Mitigation Measures 4.1.2. Impacts to historic resources by other projects within the identified cumulative impact study area, but outside the boundaries of the LLNL Livermore and SNL, Livermore sites, cannot be mitigated by DOE or UC.	Same
Aesthetics and Scenic Resources
5.3.1 New development under the proposed action would involve construction of new facilities and upgrade or replacement of buildings and infrastructure at SNL, Livermore, with possible impacts on the visual quality of the Laboratory.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
5.3.2 The proposed action would alter views from roadways designated as scenic resources under plans and policies of the County of Alameda and the City of Livermore.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Aesthetics and Scenic Resources
5.4.1 Buildout of approved and proposed developments in the vicinity of the Laboratories would potentially alter the visual quality of the region.	(Potentially) Significant	Measures to mitigate this impact are outside the authority of DOE or UC.	Same
Geologic Resources and Hazards
6.3.1 Siting of facilities in areas subject to strong ground shaking at SNL, Livermore may result in structural damage and increased exposure of people to risks associated with ground shaking.	Significant	6.3.1A All new buildings and facilities would be built according to established seismic design criteria based upon their hazard ranking and location as stated in DOE Order 5481.1B (see Appendix I).	Less than significant
		6.3.1B Engineering and administrative measures would be taken to anticipate and prevent releases of hazardous substances resulting from strong ground shaking at any given facility. Discussions of these measures are included in Appendix D and Appendix I.
		6.3.1C Site-specific geotechnical investigations by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or by a California Registered Geologist and a California Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical investigation would continue to be performed for proposed structures. The recommendations of the geotechnical investigation would include those regarding foundations and subterranean drainage and would be included in project design.
6.3.2 The potential exists for surface faulting at SNL, Livermore, near the north branch of the Las Positas fault, which may result in structural failure or expose people to potential safety hazards.	Significant	6.3.2A All new buildings and facilities would be built according to established seismic design criteria based upon their hazard ranking and location as stated in DOE Order 5481.1B (see Appendix I).	Less than significant
	Significant	6.3.2B Site-specific geotechnical investigations by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or by a California Registered Geologist and a California Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical studies would continue to be performed for proposed structures. The recommendations of the geotechnical investigation would include those regarding foundations and seismicity and would be included in project design.	Less than significant
6.3.3 Expansive or shrink-swell soils and soils with low permeability could adversely affect proposed action development projects at SNL, Livermore.	Significant	6.3.3. Site-specific geotechnical investigations by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or by a California Registered Geologist and a California Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical studies would continue to be performed for proposed structures. The recommendations of the geotechnical investigation would include those regarding foundations and subterranean drainage and would be included in project design.	Less than significant
Cumulative Impacts—Geologic Resources and Hazards
6.4.1 Proposed development projects and population growth could expose people to geologic hazards.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Ecology
7.3.1 The proposed action would affect vegetation principally by clearing land for building construction projects and infrastructure modernization (e.g., roof replacements, resurfacing paved areas, renovation of site fire water system).	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
7.3.2 The proposed action would affect wildlife principally by disrupting habitat from building construction and infrastructure modernization.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Ecology
7.4.1 Cumulative impacts to vegetation may result from regional development in the vicinity of the LLNL site and SNL, Livermore.	Potentially significant and unavoidable	7.4.1 Impacts to vegetation within the cumulative impact study area cannot be mitigated by DOE.	Same
Air Quality
8.3.1 The administrative limit for tritium at the Tritium Research Laboratory will be reduced from 50 g to zero over the next 10 years and the building will be converted to alternative uses.	Less than significant, may be beneficial	None required	Same
8.3.2 Assumed growth at SNL, Livermore under the proposed action would result in short-term impacts due to construction activities.	Less than significant	8.3.2 SNL, Livermore would require general construction practices to minimize generation of fugitive dust by water spray application.	Same
8.3.3 Assumed growth at SNL, Livermore under the proposed action would result in an increase in criteria pollutant emissions.	(Potentially) Significant and unavoidable	8.3.3 The mitigation measures discussed for nitrogen dioxide, volatile organic compound, and PM10 emissions from the LLNL Livermore site would also be employed at SNL, Livermore.	Same
8.3.4 Assumed growth at SNL, Livermore under the proposed action would result in an increase of toxic air contaminants.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
8.3.5 Decontamination and decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory will result in tritium air emissions during the decontamination activities.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Air Quality
8.4.1 Assumed growth under the proposed action at the Laboratory and surrounding communities would increase criteria pollutant emissions.	Significant and unavoidable	None available. Mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant are beyond the authority of DOE and UC.	Same
8.4.2 Radiation exposures to the public from activities at LLNL and SNL, Livermore would decrease under the proposed action.	Less than significant, may be beneficial	None warranted	Same
8.4.3 Assumed growth under the proposed action at the Laboratories and the surrounding communities would increase toxic air contaminants.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Water
9.3.1 As a result of the proposed action, a 6 percent increase in gross square footage of developed space is assumed, which may result in impacts to surface and ground water quality.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Water
9.4.1 Cumulative impacts from the proposed action and other regional development may impact surface and ground water quality.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Noise
10.3.1 Short-term increases in construction-related noise could occur near SNL, Livermore as a result of the proposed action.	Less than significant	10.3.1 Construction equipment and vehicles would be properly muffled to reduce noise impact.	Same
10.3.2 Long-term increases in traffic-related noise levels in the vicinity of SNL, Livermore would occur as a result of the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Noise
10.4.1 The proposed action would contribute a small increment to cumulatively significant roadway noise levels that are expected to occur in the future along some roads in the study area.	Significant and unavoidable	The contribution to noise levels by the proposed action will be reduced by LLNL Mitigation Measure 11.1.2. However, incremental noise impacts would not be completely eliminated. Measures to reduce cumulative roadway noise levels resulting from other projects are beyond the authority of DOE to implement.	Same
Traffic
11.1.1 Short-term traffic impacts could result during construction activities on the Laboratory sites.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
11.1.2 Implementation of the proposed action would result in increased congestion along local roadways and at intersections in the vicinity of the Laboratories.	Less than significant	11.1.2 While no mitigation is required, LLNL would implement an expanded Transportation Systems Management Program to aid in reducing traffic congestion.	Same
11.1.3 Acquisition of a portion of East Avenue, and subsequent alteration of the traffic flow along this roadway segment, could affect traffic conditions in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
11.1.4 An increased demand on public transportation would occur.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
11.1.6 An increase in demand for parking at SNL, Livermore would occur.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Traffic
11.4.1 Cumulative development in the area would result in an increase in traffic congestion along roadways in the vicinity of the site.	Significant and unavoidable	No measures are implementable by DOE or UC.	Same
11.4.2 Planned and proposed development in the cumulative study area would result in a cumulative increase in traffic congestion at certain intersections in the vicinity of the Laboratories.	Significant and unavoidable	No measures are implementable by DOE or UC.	Same
Utilities and Energy
12.3.1 Growth at SNL, Livermore may result in increased water consumption.	Significant	12.3.1A SNL, Livermore would continue to reduce landscape watering below 1989 levels.	Less than significant
		12.3.1B SNL, Livermore would continue to reduce blowdown in cooling towers to minimal operable levels.
		12.3.1C SNL, Livermore would limit car washing to only that which is essential.
		12.3.1D SNL, Livermore would reassess all new contracts for additional water-intensive landscaping (i.e., lawn and ground cover).
		12.3.1E SNL, Livermore would monitor all water use to discourage waste or unnecessary use.
12.3.2 Growth at SNL, Livermore may result in increased electricity consumption.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
12.3.3 Total fuel consumption at SNL, Livermore would increase as a result of the proposed project.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
12.3.4 An increase in the volume of sewage discharge at SNL, Livermore would result from the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Utilities and Energy
12.4.3 Cumulative development in the vicinity of SNL, Livermore would increase demand for and consumption of water.	Significant and unavoidable	12.4.3 Mitigation measures for the proposed action are set forth under Impact 12.3.1. No mitigation measures are available for other projects in the area.	Same
12.4.6 Cumulative development at SNL, Livermore under the proposed action would increase electric power demand.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
12.4.7 The proposed action would impact sewage services together with other development in the service area.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Materials and Waste Management
13.3.1 An increase in the quantity of hazardous or radioactive materials transported to and from SNL, Livermore would result under the proposed action.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
13.3.2 The projected growth at SNL, Livermore may result in the increased generation of radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and medical wastes.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
13.3.3 Mixed-waste generation would require onsite storage beyond storage limits prescribed by RCRA.	(Potentially) Significant and unavoidable	13.3.3A SNL, Livermore would continue to enhance its waste minimization policies and practices to reduce generation of mixed wastes at the source.	Same
	(Potentially) Significant and unavoidable	13.3.3B When treatment and disposal options become available for these mixed wastes, SNL, Livermore would pursue these alternatives.	Same
13.3.4 Increased waste generation may result in increased storage requirements for radioactive and mixed waste.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
13.3.5 Increased waste generation would result in an increased number of waste shipments.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
13.3.6 Decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory would result in an increased generation of low-level radioactive wastes for the three years of the project.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
13.3.7 Decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory would result in increased mixed waste generation for the three years of the project.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Materials and Waste Management
13.4.1 The projected growth of LLNL and SNL, Livermore, together with increased development in regional industrial areas, would result in an increased number of shipments of radioactive and hazardous materials.	Less than significant	None warranted. No mitigation measures are available for other projects in the area.	Same
13.4.2 Assumed growth at the Laboratories and at other waste-generating facilities may result in increased waste generation, treatment, and disposal.	Significant and unavoidable	Mitigation measures to prevent or reduce these cumulative impacts are beyond the authority of UC. DOE is addressing the issue on a national scale as part of a Programmatic EIS.	Same
13.4.3 Assumed growth at the Laboratories and surrounding facilities may result in increased hazardous and radioactive waste shipments in the area.	Significant and unavoidable	Mitigation measures to prevent or reduce these cumulative impacts are beyond the authority of UC. DOE is addressing the issue on a national scale as part of a Programmatic EIS.	Same
Occupational Protection and Public Health
14.3.1 Over the next 10 years, SNL, Livermore will phase out tritium operations at the Tritium Research Laboratory and convert the building to other uses. This could reduce radiation exposure to workers.	Less than significant, may be beneficial	None warranted	Same
14.3.2 Decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory would increase radiation exposure to decontamination workers.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
14.3.3 Construction of a proposed Environmental Safety and Health facility at SNL, Livermore, with a new hazardous waste handling facility for temporary storage of toxic and mixed waste, would replace the current waste handling facility and would reduce worker exposure.	Less than significant, may be beneficial	None warranted	Same
Cumulative Impacts—Occupational Protection and Public Health
14.4.1 The collective radiation dose to workers at LLNL and SNL, Livermore would decrease from current levels.	Less than significant, may be beneficial	None warranted	Same
14.4.2 Workers at LLNL and SNL, Livermore would continue to be exposed to approximately the same level of risk from toxic substances in the workplace as under current conditions.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same
Site Contamination–Cumulative Impacts
15.4.4 The proposed action may result in exposure of people to site contaminants, or in the release of site contaminants to the air or surface water.	Less than significant	None warranted	Same

*In accordance with CEQA and the UC CEQA Guidelines, four descriptive categories are used in this EIS/EIR to discuss and analyze environmental impacts: less than significant, significant, significant and unavoidable, and beneficial. These determinations are used consistently throughout the EIS/EIR. Under NEPA, however, 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. Although SNL, Livermore is not subject to CEQA, Levels of Significance are used in tables to provide consistency with LLNL discussions.

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)