5.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Summary of No Action
This alternative is the continued operation of LLNL and SNL, Livermore including those projects already funded through FY 1992. Programs and projects would continue at their present (FY 1992) level as described in section 3.2.1, but no proposed projects would be added except those funded, those required to maintain the existing infrastructure, and those required for compliance with statutes and regulations. Employment and funding levels, adjusted for inflation, would remain at FY 1992 levels.
The standards of significance for the no action alternative are the same as those applied to the proposed action.
5.2.1 LAND USES AND APPLICABLE PLANS
This section describes the impacts to land uses and applicable plans under the no action alternative.
LLNL Livermore Site
Under the no action alternative, programs and projects would continue at their present (FY 1992) level. No land acquisitions are included under the no action alternative.
The existing LLNL Livermore site facilities do not conflict with the surrounding land uses, given the 500-ft-wide perimeter areas. The no action alternative would be compatible with the surrounding land uses, since no new types of land uses would be introduced.
Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with the applicable land use plans and policies for the County of Alameda and the City of Livermore; no land use incompatibilities with planned and proposed projects in the vicinity are identified for this alternative.
LLNL Site 300
The types of land uses at LLNL Site 300 are not proposed to change. No land acquisitions are included as part of the no action alternative.
The no action alternative would be compatible with the surrounding land uses, since no new types of land uses would be introduced. Implementation of this alternative would also be consistent with the applicable land use plans and policies for the County of Alameda and the County of San Joaquin.
SNL, Livermore
Under the no action alternative, programs and projects at SNL, Livermore would continue at their present (FY 1992) level. No land acquisitions are included as part of the no action alternative. The types of land uses at SNL, Livermore would not change under the no action alternative.
The existing SNL, Livermore facilities do not conflict with the surrounding land uses. The no action alternative would be compatible with the surrounding land uses, since no new types of land uses would be introduced.
Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with the applicable land use plans and policies for the County of Alameda and the City of Livermore; no land use incompatibilities with planned and proposed projects in the vicinity are identified for this alternative.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
No additional square footage at the site would result with this alternative.
As discussed in section 4.2, land uses surrounding the LLNL Livermore site include industrial, agricultural, and residential. The existing LLNL Livermore site facilities are compatible with the land uses surrounding the sites, recognizing the presence of the 500-ft-wide perimeter areas. The no action alternative would be compatible with existing and approved future land uses surrounding the site, since no new types of land uses are proposed.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
No additional square footage at the site would result with this alternative.
As discussed in section 4.2, land uses surrounding LLNL Site 300 include privately owned high explosives testing facilities, agricultural land, and the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area. The uses at LLNL Site 300 are compatible with the existing land uses surrounding the site. The no action alternative would be compatible with existing and approved future land uses surrounding the site, since no new types of land uses would be introduced.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
No additional square footage at the site would result with this alternative.
Land uses surrounding the site include industrial, agricultural, and residential. The existing SNL, Livermore facilities are compatible with the land uses surrounding the site, recognizing the presence of the undeveloped perimeter areas. The no action alternative would be compatible with existing and approved future land uses surrounding the site, since no new types of land uses would be introduced.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE
Development of the approved and proposed projects in the Livermore Valley (listed in Section 10) would contribute to the cumulative loss of agricultural land and open space; however, as under the proposed action, implementation of the no action alternative would not contribute to this cumulative effect because no loss of agricultural land or designated open space is proposed.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
Approved and proposed projects in the southwestern San Joaquin County hillsides (listed in Section 10) would contribute to a cumulative loss of open space; however, as under the proposed action, implementation of the no action alternative would not contribute to this cumulative loss of open space because no loss of agricultural land or open space is proposed.
5.2.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
This section describes the impacts to the socioeconomic characteristics of the region under the no action alternative.
LLNL Livermore Site
Project employment levels would remain similar to existing levels; therefore, the no action alternative would not change the employment base within Alameda County or San Joaquin County.
The no action alternative would not increase employment at the LLNL Livermore site; therefore, this alternative is not expected to alter the population within the region or to change the demand for housing.
Because employment levels and research and development activity would remain stable, the no action alternative would not result in impacts to the regional and local economy. The no action alternative would not provide additional employment opportunities or result in an increased level of expenditures for goods and services in the local and regional economy.
LLNL Site 300
As described for the LLNL Livermore site, implementing the no action alternative at LLNL Site 300 would result in no change to the current employment base or economy.
SNL, Livermore
Implementing the no action alternative at SNL, Livermore would result in no change to the current employment base or economy.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
Employment Base
The no action alternative would not change the employment base of Alameda County because project employment levels are assumed to remain the same as current levels. Thus, no adverse employment impacts are anticipated.
Population and Demand for Housing
As stated above, the no action alternative would not increase employment at the LLNL Livermore site or SNL, Livermore. The no action alternative would not create an in-migration of persons into the region in search of employment opportunities. Therefore, the alternative is not anticipated to result in the alteration of population within the region or to change the demand for housing. Thus, no adverse housing impacts are anticipated.
Economic Factors
The no action alternative would not alter the existing economic contribution of the LLNL Livermore site to the region because employment levels and research and development activity are assumed to remain the same as current levels. Also, the no action alternative would have no effect on the amount of expenditures for goods and services in the local and regional economy. Thus, no adverse or beneficial economic impacts are anticipated.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
Employment Base
No adverse impacts to the employment base of San Joaquin County are anticipated as a result of the no action alternative because project employment levels are assumed to remain the same as current levels.
Population and Demand for Housing
No changes in population or in the demand for housing are anticipated within San Joaquin County as a result of the no action alternative because employment levels are assumed to remain the same as current levels. Thus, no adverse housing impacts are anticipated.
Economic Factors
The no action alternative would not alter the existing economic contribution of LLNL Site 300 to the region because employment levels and research and development activity are assumed to remain the same as current levels. Also, the no action alternative would have no effect on the amount of expenditures for goods and services in the local and regional economy. Thus, no adverse or beneficial economic impacts are anticipated.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
Employment Base
As described for the LLNL Livermore site, no adverse impacts to the employment base of Alameda County are anticipated as a result of the no action alternative for SNL, Livermore because employment levels under this alternative are assumed to remain the same as current levels.
Population and Demand for Housing
As described for the LLNL Livermore site, no changes in population or the demand for housing are anticipated within Alameda County as a result of the no action alternative for SNL, Livermore. Thus, no adverse population or housing impacts are anticipated.
Economic Factors
The no action alternative would not alter the existing level of economic contribution of SNL, Livermore to the region because employment levels and research and development activity are assumed to remain the same as current levels. Also, the no action alternative would have no effect on the amount of expenditures for goods and services in the local and regional economy. Thus, no adverse economic impacts are anticipated.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL AND SNL, LIVERMORE
Population and Demand for Housing
As discussed in section 5.1.2, development of the planned and proposed projects in the City of Livermore (listed in section 10) would contribute to an increase in population level and housing demand within the region. This is a potentially significant and unavoidable adverse impact. The no action alternative, however, would not contribute to this impact.
The evaluation of cumulative impacts on housing focuses on the City of Livermore since the highest proportion of LLNL and SNL, Livermore personnel live in that city. Population projections for the City of Livermore anticipate a 26.4 percent increase in population by the year 2000. This anticipated growth would result in a need for 25,426 housing units, based on the current person per household figure of 2.82. The projected increase in population associated with the planned and approved projects could not be accommodated in the current housing stock of 20,932 units.
5.2.3 COMMUNITY SERVICES
This section describes the impacts to community services from the no action alternative.
LLNL Livermore Site
The no action alternative would not result in any changes to existing fire protection and emergency services provided to the LLNL Livermore site, nor to existing police protection and security services.
Approximately 1700 students who have one or more parents employed at LLNL are currently enrolled in the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. The no action alternative is not expected to result in any changes to current enrollment or to school services in the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District or other districts in the region.
The LLNL Livermore site currently disposes of approximately 24,000 cu yd of solid waste at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill each year and the landfill has an anticipated remaining capacity of 17 years. The no action alternative is not expected to result in any changes in solid waste generation or to solid waste disposal services in general.
LLNL Site 300
The no action alternative would not result in any changes to existing fire protection and emergency services, nor to existing police protection or security services.
The existing setting and impact analysis for school services is combined for the LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300. Please see the above discussion of school services under the LLNL Livermore site.
LLNL Site 300 currently disposes of approximately 2200 cu yd of solid waste annually at the Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill in San Joaquin County, which is scheduled to close in 1995.
SNL, Livermore
The no action alternative would not result in any changes to existing fire protection and emergency services provided to SNL, Livermore, nor to existing police protection or security services.
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 no action alternative would not result in a change in current enrollment or to school services at the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District or other districts in the region.
SNL, Livermore currently disposes of approximately 3600 cu yd of solid waste at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill each year. The no action alternative would not result in a change in solid waste generation or solid waste disposal services.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
Fire Protection and Emergency Services
The no action alternative would not have a significant impact on either onsite fire protection and emergency services or offsite fire protection agencies. The no action alternative would include infrastructure maintenance and upgrades; however, no increases in employment are anticipated. Demands for fire protection and emergency services as a result of the no action alternative are expected to be similar to those under present conditions. The LLNL Fire Department currently provides adequate onsite service. The adequacy of these services would continue to be evaluated on an annual basis, and it is anticipated that personnel, equipment, and facilities would be increased or upgraded as necessary.
LLNL interacts infrequently with offsite fire protection agencies. Interaction is expected to remain similar to the current level under the no action alternative. Current fire protection and emergency service needs of LLNL do not significantly affect offsite fire protection agencies' ability to provide adequate service within their respective jurisdictions or mutual aid network. Thus, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
Police Protection and Security Service
The no action alternative would not have a significant impact on onsite security services or offsite police protection agencies. Under the no action alternative, demands for security services are expected to remain similar to those under present conditions. The LLNL Protective Force Division currently provides adequate onsite security protection.
LLNL interacts infrequently with offsite police protection agencies. Under the no action alternative, interaction is expected to remain similar to the current levels. Current security needs of LLNL do not significantly affect the ability of offsite police protection agencies to provide adequate service within their respective jurisdictions or emergency response network. Thus, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
School Services
Employment at LLNL would not increase under this alternative; therefore, the number of students associated with the no action alternative would remain at the present levels. Thus, this alternative would not contribute further to existing capacity problems in the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District or other districts in the region. No adverse impacts are anticipated.
Nonhazardous Solid Waste Disposal
Like the proposed action, the no action alternative would not result in an adverse impact on the ability of the County of Alameda to provide adequate solid waste disposal space. The amount of solid waste generated at the LLNL Livermore site under the no action alternative would be approximately the same as present levels. The Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill currently has an anticipated remaining capacity of 17 years, and Alameda County is planning to expand its solid waste disposal capacity. No adverse impacts are anticipated.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
Impacts discussed above under LLNL Livermore Site for fire protection and emergency services, police protection and security services, and school services are also applicable to LLNL Site 300. The rate of nonhazardous solid waste generated onsite as a result of the no action alternative is assumed to be approximately the same as the present rate. However, because the Corral Hollow Landfill is scheduled to close in 1995, and the County of San Joaquin has not completed plans for future nonhazardous solid waste disposal beyond that time, this alternative could contribute to a potentially significant impact on the disposal services at the landfill.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
Fire Protection and Emergency Services
The no action alternative would not have a significant impact on either onsite fire protection and emergency services or offsite fire protection agencies. Only a few additional structures and infrastructure upgrades would be included in the no action alternative (see Section 3). No increases in employment are anticipated. Demands for fire protection and emergency services as a result of the no action alternative are expected to be similar to those under present conditions. The LLNL Livermore site Fire Department and the SNL, Livermore fire protection and other site facility support currently provide adequate onsite service. The adequacy of these services would continue to be evaluated on an annual basis, and it is anticipated that personnel, equipment, and facilities would be increased or upgraded as necessary.
The LLNL Fire Department also serves SNL, Livermore. The department interacts infrequently with offsite fire protection agencies. Interaction is expected to remain similar to the current level under the no action alternative. Current fire protection and emergency service needs of SNL, Livermore do not significantly affect offsite fire protection agencies' ability to provide adequate service within their respective jurisdictions or mutual aid network. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the no action alternative.
Police Protection and Security Services
The no action alternative would not have a significant impact on onsite security services or offsite police protection agencies. Under the no action alternative, demands for security services are expected to remain similar to those under present conditions. The SNL, Livermore Protective Force currently provides adequate onsite security protection.
SNL, Livermore infrequently interacts with offsite police protection agencies. Under the no action alternative, interaction is expected to remain the same as the current levels. Current security needs of SNL, Livermore do not significantly affect the ability of offsite police protection agencies to provide adequate service within their respective jurisdictions or emergency response network.
School Services
Impacts discussed above under LLNL Livermore Site for school services are also applicable to SNL, Livermore.
Nonhazardous Solid Waste Disposal
Impacts discussed above under LLNL Livermore Site for solid waste disposal are also applicable to SNL, Livermore.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE
Under the no action alternative, demands on fire protection and emergency services as well as police protection and security services are expected to remain similar to the current level. The LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore fire protection and security staff currently provide adequate service onsite and current needs do not affect the ability of offsite agencies to provide adequate service within their respective jurisdictions. Therefore, the no action alternative would not result in a significant cumulative impact on either onsite or offsite fire protection and emergency services or police protection and security services.
Employment at LLNL and SNL, Livermore is not expected to increase; therefore, under this alternative the number of students associated with the no action alternative would remain at present levels and no additional demands on school services in the region would result.
The rate of nonhazardous solid waste generation at the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore under the no action alternative would be approximately the same as present levels. Thus, this alternative would not contribute to additional cumulative demand for nonhazardous landfill capacity at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
Cumulative impacts discussed above for the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore for fire protection and emergency services, police protection and security services, and school services are also applicable to LLNL Site 300.
The rate of nonhazardous solid waste generation at LLNL Site 300 as a result of the no action alternative is expected to be approximately the same as present levels; however, because the Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill is scheduled to close in 1995 and San Joaquin County has not completed plans for future nonhazardous solid waste disposal beyond that time, this alternative could contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact on nonhazardous landfill capacity at the Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill.
5.2.4 PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section describes the impacts to prehistoric and historic cultural resources under the no action alternative.
LLNL Livermore Site
No prehistoric resources have been identified on the LLNL Livermore site. A formal evaluation of the historic resources at the Laboratory has not yet been completed. If portions of the LLNL Livermore site are determined by the Section 106 process (of the National Historic Preservation Act) to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, implementation of the no action alternative could affect important historic resources through activities such as maintenance and experimental reconfigurations.
LLNL Site 300
Previous surveys at LLNL Site 300 have identified the presence of both prehistoric and historic resources on the site. Activities associated with the no action alternative could affect historic resources.
SNL, Livermore
No National Register listed or eligible properties are located at SNL, Livermore (State Historic Preservation Office, 1990); therefore, activities associated with the no action alternative would not affect any prehistoric or historic cultural resources at this facility.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
The Area of Potential Effect would encompass the entire LLNL Livermore site.
Prehistoric Resources
There are no recorded prehistoric resources at the LLNL Livermore site that would be affected by this alternative. No impacts to prehistoric resources are identified. Continued DOE compliance with Section 106 of NHPA, as well as the provisions of 36 C.F.R. 800.11 (Properties Discovered During Implementation of an Undertaking), would lead to mitigation of impacts to National Register– listed or –eligible prehistoric resources, should any be discovered.
Historic Resources
Impacts to potentially important historic resources cannot be determined because the historic property identification phase of Section 106 is currently under way. Because of environmental restoration and other ongoing operations, historic resources could be affected. If portions of the Laboratory are determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, with concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Office, the Section 106 process would lead to preparation of an agreement document, outlining DOE's preservation responsibilities relating to the properties. Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act would result in a less than significant impact to historic resources.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
The Area of Potential Effect would include all ongoing activity areas, including maintenance and environmental restoration activities.
Prehistoric Resources
No recorded prehistoric resources are anticipated to be affected under this alternative. Continued DOE compliance with Section 106 of NHPA, as well as the provisions of 36 C.F.R. 800.11 [Properties Discovered During Implementation of an Undertaking], would lead to mitigation of impacts to National Register listed or eligible prehistoric resources, should any be discovered.
Historic Resources
Impacts to potentially important historic resources at LLNL Site 300 cannot be determined because additional archival research and site investigation is currently underway to determine the presence of historically significant resources associated with the Carnegie townsite area in the southeastern portion of the site (William Self Associates, 1992). Because of environmental restoration and other ongoing activities, historic resources could be affected. Once the necessary data have been gathered, and the site(s) evaluated for eligibility to the National Register (and concurrence sought from the State Historic Preservation Office), the Section 106 process would lead to preparation of an agreement document, outlining DOE's preservation responsibilities relating to the properties. This is anticipated to reduce potential impacts to historic resources to a less than significant level.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
The Area of Potential Effect would encompass the entire SNL, Livermore site.
Prehistoric Resources
No impacts to prehistoric resources are anticipated at SNL, Livermore.
Historic Resources
No impacts to National Register listed on eligible historic properties are anticipated at SNL, Livermore.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE
The cumulative impact study areas for prehistoric and historic resources at the three Laboratory sites under the no action alternative are the same as those described for the proposed action. As discussed under the proposed action, cumulative impacts to both prehistoric and historic resources within the identified cumulative impact study areas have not been delineated as part of this EIS/EIR; however, because cultural resources are known to occur within the areas, it is assumed that future development within the area could potentially impact these resources.
Prehistoric Resources
As no prehistoric resources were located either on the LLNL Livermore site or at SNL, Livermore and proposed activities at these facilities under the no action alternative are not expected to result in impacts to prehistoric resources, the Laboratories would not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts to prehistoric resources within the study area.
Historic Resources
No National Register–listed or –eligible historic properties were identified at SNL, Livermore. Important historic resources may be identified on the LLNL Livermore site, which would require compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Laboratories could contribute to potential cumulative impacts to historic resources within the study area, although at this time it is too speculative to determine whether the potential cumulative impact is significant or not.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
Refer to the above discussion under LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore regarding delineation of cumulative impact study areas and determination of cumulative cultural resources impacts within these areas.
Prehistoric Resources
No impacts to prehistoric resources are anticipated at LLNL Site 300 under the no action alternative; therefore, the Laboratory would not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts to prehistoric resources within the study area.
Historic Resources
Important historic resources may be identified on LLNL Site 300, which would require compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Laboratory could contribute to potential cumulative impacts to historic resources within the study area, although at this time it is too speculative to determine whether the potential cumulative impact would be significant or not.
5.2.5 AESTHETIC AND SCENIC RESOURCES
This section describes the impacts to the aesthetic and scenic resources under the no action alternative.
LLNL Livermore Site
Under the no action alternative, programs and projects would continue at their present (FY 1992) level. The no action alternative includes facility upgrades and maintenance at the LLNL Livermore site. Views from surrounding scenic roadways and adjacent residences would not be adversely affected as a result of the no action alternative. Impacts upon the visual quality of the Laboratory would be less under the no action alternative than under the proposed action, due to fewer construction activities. The LLNL Livermore site would continue to be compatible with local and regional scenic resources plans and policies.
LLNL Site 300
The no action alternative includes upgrading of several existing facilities, roadways, and utilities. No land acquisitions are included as part of the no action alternative. The visual character of LLNL Site 300 would not change with the implementation of the no action alternative. LLNL Site 300 would continue to be compatible with local and regional scenic resource plans and policies.
SNL, Livermore
Under the no action alternative, programs and projects would continue at their FY 1992 level. The no action alternative includes facility upgrades and limited new construction at SNL, Livermore. Views from surrounding scenic roadways would not be adversely affected. Impacts upon the visual quality of the Laboratory would be less under the no action alternative than under the proposed action, due to less construction. SNL, Livermore operations would continue to be compatible with local and regional scenic resources plans and policies.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
Short-Term Viewshed Impacts
The no action alternative includes upgrades and maintenance of existing facilities at the LLNL Livermore site. Construction activities may cause a short-term adverse impact on the views from some adjacent land uses and roadways. The discussion of viewshed impacts for the proposed action (see section 5.1.5) is also relevant for the no action alternative. The no action alternative involves less prominent construction activity at the LLNL Livermore site than the proposed action since no new buildings are included in this alternative. Therefore, the potential for short-term construction-related impacts on views from adjacent areas and scenic roadways would be less than significant under this alternative.
Conflict with Plans and Policies
The no action alternative would not conflict with adopted open space and scenic resources plans and policies of the County of Alameda or the City of Livermore. The discussion of consistency with scenic resource and open space policies for the proposed action (see section 5.1.5) is also relevant for the no action alternative.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
Short-Term Viewshed Impacts
The no action alternative includes upgrading and maintenance of roadways and utilities at LLNL Site 300. Construction activities may cause a short-term adverse impact on views from Corral Hollow Road. The discussion of viewshed impacts for the proposed action (see section 5.1.5) is also relevant for the no action alternative. The no action alternative involves less prominent construction at LLNL Site 300 than the proposed action since no major new buildings are included in this alternative. Therefore, the potential for short-term construction- related impacts on views from adjacent areas and scenic roadways would be less than significant.
Conflict with Plans and Policies
The no action alternative would not conflict with adopted open space and scenic resources plans and policies of the County of San Joaquin or the County of Alameda. The discussion of consistency with scenic resource and open space policies for the proposed action (see section 5.1.5) is also relevant for the no action alternative.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
Short-Term Viewshed Impacts
As described for the LLNL Livermore site, the no action alternative includes upgrades and maintenance of existing facilities at SNL, Livermore. Construction activities may cause a short-term adverse impact on the views from adjacent land uses and roadways.
Conflict with Plans and Policies
As described for the LLNL Livermore site, the no action alternative would not conflict with adopted open space and scenic resources plans and policies of the County of Alameda or the City of Livermore.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE, LLNL SITE 300, AND SNL, LIVERMORE
Development of approved and proposed projects in the vicinity of the sites could contribute to a cumulative effect on visual resources in the vicinity of the sites. At this time, however, it is too speculative to determine whether or not this impact would be significant. Implementation of the no action alternative would not contribute to the cumulative impact on scenic resources since this alternative would not have long-term impacts on views.
5.2.6 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES AND HAZARDS
This section includes an evaluation of potential geologic (or geotechnical) hazards, such as seismically induced hazards and nonseismic earth movements, and an evaluation of potential impacts to geologic resources such as minerals, construction materials, soils, and fossils under the no action alternative.
LLNL Livermore Site
Potential sources for future ground motion around the LLNL Livermore site include the Greenville, Las Positas, Vernon, Corral Hollow–Carnegie, and Williams faults. Buildings and structures under the no action alternative could be affected both by dynamic hazards, such as ground motion and fault rupture, and by static hazards such as differential settlement. This site is also located in an area of documented mineral and construction material resources, such as gravel.
LLNL Site 300
The active Corral Hollow–Carnegie fault zone crosses the southern portion of LLNL Site 300. Geologic outcrops are common, and exposures have been identified that contain both minerals and fossils.
SNL, Livermore
The hilly and flat terrains of SNL, Livermore are separated by the Las Positas fault, which crosses southeastern portions of the SNL, Livermore site.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
Geologic Resources
None of the activities under the no action alternative would affect any known exploitable geologic resources, and therefore there would be no impacts on such resources from the no action alternative.
Geologic Hazards
Significant impacts to structures and related infrastructure under the no action alternative could result from seismic events. However, the impacts of a seismic event under this alternative would be similar to impacts under the proposed action.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
Geologic Resources
None of the activities under the no action alternative are on or near any known or exploitable geologic resources, and therefore no impacts on such resources would result from the no action alternative.
Geologic Hazards
Significant impacts to structures and related infrastructure, and surrounding communities, under the no action alternative could result from seismic events. However, the impacts of a seismic event under this alternative would be similar to impacts under the proposed action. A portion of the proposed 1.7-mile, 10-inch-diameter water supply line to LLNL Site 300 from the Hetch Hetchy Thomas Shaft is subject to surface faulting. Expansive or shrink-swell soils and soils with low permeability could adversely affect the no action alternative development projects. Construction of subterranean structures in poorly drained subsurface sediments could result in seepage problems.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
Geologic Resources
None of the no action alternative activities are near any known exploitable geologic resources, and therefore there would be no impacts on such resources from the no action alternative.
Geologic Hazards
Projects associated with the no action alternative are not located on or immediately near the known trace of the Las Positas fault.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE, LLNL SITE 300, AND SNL, LIVERMORE
People working in structures at the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore and those living in the vicinity of those facilities could be exposed to the impacts from landslides, ground shaking, and associated hazards that commonly occur in a seismically active area.
Facility upgrades, modifications, and maintenance activities associated with the no action alternative would include appropriate engineering and administrative measures to reduce or eliminate injuries or the release of hazardous substances resulting from ground shaking at the Laboratories.
5.2.7 ECOLOGY
This section focuses on the impacts to ecological resources under the no action alternative. Section 4.9 describes the existing ecological conditions and current operations that impact or may impact ecological resources. A more detailed description of the ecological resources and the impacts of current operations appears in Appendices F and G.
Vegetation and Wildlife
LLNL Livermore Site
The LLNL Livermore site vegetation has been greatly altered by human activity and consists of landscaped areas, fields dominated by early successional plant communities indicative of recent disturbance, annual grasslands in the security zone, and remnant wooded riparian vegetation along Arroyo Seco. The wildlife in these plant communities consists of species adapted to living in areas of high human activity or species adapted to living in grassland habitat.
LLNL Site 300
LLNL Site 300 vegetation and wildlife consist of a diverse interspersion of plant community types and a high level of wildlife species diversity.
SNL, Livermore
Vegetation at SNL, Livermore consists of highly altered plant communities in the built-up areas, annual grasslands in the security zone, and remnant riparian vegetation in Arroyo Seco. The wildlife in these areas consists of species adapted to living in areas with a high degree of human activity, species typical of grassland habitat, and species typical of wooded riparian areas.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
The LLNL Livermore site has been built up for many years, and the current onsite vegetation and wildlife are adapted for life in areas that have a high degree of human activity. Therefore, the no action alternative would have less than significant impact on vegetation and wildlife.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
Operations impacting vegetation and wildlife at LLNL Site 300 are discussed in detail in sections F.1.1.3 and F.1.2.3 of Appendix F and sections 4.9.1 and 4.9.2 of this EIS/EIR. Overall, the operation of LLNL Site 300 has had a positive impact on vegetation and wildlife through the exclusion of livestock grazing and other agricultural practices and the annual controlled burns. These management practices have created an interspersion of unaltered plant communities including native perennial grasslands and wetlands that support a diverse assemblage of wildlife found in few grassland-dominated ecosystems in central California. Projects at LLNL Site 300 under the no action alternative, such as the site revitalization project plan, would have a minimal impact on vegetation and wildlife. Much of the 18.5 acres that would be cleared for road improvement (14.5 acres) represents marginal wildlife habitat because it is next to currently existing roadways. (See section 4.9 for more details.)
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
The vegetation and wildlife that occur in built-up areas onsite have been adapted to such conditions for a long period of time. There would be no additional disturbance to vegetation and wildlife in the grasslands in the security zone or along Arroyo Seco. The vegetation and wildlife in these areas would remain in their relatively undisturbed state, and therefore the no action alternative would have a less than significant impact on vegetation and wildlife.
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 wildlife, the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore are addressed together because of their proximity.
The cumulative impacts study area for vegetation and wildlife is defined as the Livermore Valley. The full extent of undeveloped plant communities and wildlife habitat within this study area cannot be delineated as part of this EIS/EIR; however, it is assumed that future development within the area could impact these resources. Because essentially no undeveloped plant communities or wildlife habitat would be impacted either at the LLNL Livermore site or at SNL, Livermore, activities associated with the no action alternative would not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts to undeveloped plant communities within the study area.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
The cumulative impacts study area for vegetation is the rolling terrain and steep canyon areas in the Diablo Range. The full extent of undeveloped plant communities and 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 these resources. Because only 18.5 acres of undeveloped plant communities and wildlife habitat would be impacted at LLNL Site 300, activities associated with the no action alternative would not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts to undeveloped plant communities and wildlife habitat within the study area. The overall impact of operations at LLNL Site 300 has had a positive cumulative impact on vegetation and 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, including a large stand of native perennial grasslands which are now rare in California. These plant communities support a highly diverse assemblage of wildlife species.
Threatened and Endangered Species
LLNL Livermore Site
Threatened, endangered, or other sensitive flora and fauna species of concern were not observed at the LLNL Livermore site.
LLNL Site 300
Threatened, endangered, and other sensitive flora and fauna species of concern reside at LLNL Site 300. Activities included in the no action alternative have the potential for significant impacts on these species.
SNL, Livermore
Threatened, endangered, or other sensitive species of concern were not observed at the SNL, Livermore site.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
The no action alternative would have no impact on sensitive species at the LLNL Livermore site because no such species reside onsite.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
Surveys for threatened, endangered, and other species of concern resulted in the observation of eight species and the potential habitat of four additional species. Potential impacts of current operations on these and other species are summarized on Table 4.9-2. These impacts would be minimal on sensitive species especially. As indicated for vegetation and wildlife above, the management practices prohibiting agricultural practices onsite and conducting the annual controlled burns are beneficial to the biological resources, including the sensitive species that reside onsite.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
The no action alternative would have no impact on sensitive species at SNL, Livermore because no such species reside onsite.
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 impacts 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. No sensitive species were recorded during the 1991 surveys at the LLNL Livermore site or at SNL, Livermore. 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 no action alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts on sensitive species.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—SITE 300
The cumulative impacts 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 recorded from LLNL Site 300 are listed in section 5.1.7.3 above.
The occurrence of the sensitive species within the cumulative 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, result in cumulative impacts to sensitive species. Because only 18.5 acres of potential sensitive species habitat would be impacted at LLNL Site 300 and because the Laboratory is committed to mitigation of its impacts on sensitive species, activities associated with no action would not contribute to any potential 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.
Wetlands
LLNL Livermore Site
An estimated 0.36 acre of wetlands occurs along Arroyo Las Positas. The no action alternative activities would not occur in this area. Overflow from the retention basin may, however, impact these wetlands.
LLNL Site 300
An estimated 6.76 acres of natural and artificial wetlands occur at LLNL Site 300. Activities included in the no action alternative would not impact these wetlands.
SNL, Livermore
An estimated 1.44 acres of wetlands occur at SNL, Livermore. The no action alternative activities would not impact these wetlands.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
The no action alternative activities would not adversely impact wetlands at the LLNL Livermore site. However, the retention basin designed to collect treated water from the ground water restoration project may result in additional runoff into Arroyo Las Positas, creating additional wetlands. In addition, wetlands may develop around the perimeter of the retention basin itself. This may be a beneficial impact.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
The no action alternative would not impact wetlands at LLNL Site 300. The ground water restoration project may result in the discharge of treated water into Corral Hollow Creek, which would likely create additional wetlands. This may be a beneficial impact.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
The no action alternative activities would not affect wetlands at SNL, Livermore.
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 wetlands, the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore are addressed together because of their proximity.
The cumulative impacts 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 future development within the area could impact this resource. As no wetlands would be impacted at the LLNL Livermore site or at SNL, Livermore under the no action alternative, activities at the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore would not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts to wetlands within the study area.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
The cumulative impacts study area for wetlands is the rolling terrains and steep canyon areas in the Diablo Range. The full extent of wetlands 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 may, if constructed, impact this resource. Activities associated with no action would not impact wetlands at LLNL Site 300 and therefore would not 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.
5.2.8 AIR QUALITY
This section discusses impacts to air quality under the no action alternative.
LLNL Livermore Site
Under the no action alternative, there would be no increases in criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions and, therefore, individually the site would have a less than significant impact. Existing emissions from the LLNL Livermore site would still be contributing to a nonattainment air basin for ozone and PM10, so the impact is considered a significant impact. Although mitigation measures such as those described under the proposed action would reduce offsite impacts, the mitigation measures would not reduce the impact to less than significant.
Under the no action alternative, the administrative limit for tritium at Building 331, the Hydrogen Research Facility, will be reduced from 300 g to 5 g. There are no reported releases of radionuclides other than tritium that affect the level of radiation exposure of members of the public. Therefore this impact is less than significant and may be beneficial.
LLNL Site 300
Under the no action alternative there would be no increases in criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions or radiation releases; therefore, individually the site would have a less than significant impact. Existing emissions from LLNL Site 300 would still be contributing to a nonattainment air basin for ozone and PM10, so the impact is considered a significant impact. Although mitigation measures would reduce the offsite impacts, they would not reduce the impacts to less than significant.
SNL, Livermore
Under the no action alternative there would be no increases in criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions or releases of radionuclides; therefore, individually the site would have a less than significant impact. Existing emissions from SNL, Livermore would still be contributing to a nonattainment air basin for ozone and PM10, so the impact is considered a significant impact. Although mitigation measures would reduce the offsite impacts, they could not reduce the impacts to less than significant.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE, LLNL SITE 300, AND SNL, LIVERMORE
Under the no action alternative there would be no new emission sources at the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, or SNL, Livermore, but emissions from these sites due to stationary and mobile sources and from approved and proposed projects in the regional air districts would be contributing to a nonattainment area for ozone and PM10. These impacts are considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
Under the no action alternative the administrative limit for tritium at LLNL Livermore site Building 331 and SNL, Livermore Building 968 would be reduced from current levels and thus would lead to no increase in radiation releases from either LLNL Site 300 or SNL, Livermore. These impacts are considered less than significant and may be beneficial. Operations associated with the inventory reduction process would result in a short-term impact that is less than significant and a long-term impact that would be beneficial.
Decommissioning of Building 968, the Tritium Research Laboratory, would generate tritium emissions during the decontamination activities. These emissions would be within the same order of magnitude as the normal operating stack releases of this laboratory. This impact is discussed in Impact 8.3.5 for the proposed action alternative, and also applies to the no action alternative.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE, LLNL SITE 300, AND SNL, LIVERMORE
Under the no action alternative 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 by the cumulative impacts, cumulative growth would result in the emission of primary pollutants, such as NOx and volatile organic compounds, 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 impact.
5.2.9 WATER
This section discusses impacts to surface water and ground water resources under the no action alternative. Impacts involving surface water and ground water quality are discussed in sections 4.11, 4.17, and 5.1.15. Hydrologic impacts relating to surface water and ground water bodies, including ground water recharge, declining water levels, and flooding, are presented below.
LLNL Livermore Site
Arroyo Las Positas is the only potential source of flooding onsite. An evaluation of hydrologic impacts from the no action alternative activities is presented below.
LLNL Site 300
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. Potential impacts of the no action alternative activities are presented below.
SNL, Livermore
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. Arroyo Seco is the only potential source for flooding at SNL, Livermore.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
Seasonal rainfall, together with the additional paving included under the no action alternative, may increase runoff flows in local drainage channels. Although this could result in increased intermittent flow for some local streams, including Arroyo Seco and Arroyo Las Positas, such increased flows would likely be minor, and, therefore, would result in no adverse impacts.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
No adverse impacts to ground water or surface water bodies are anticipated under the no action alternative.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
No adverse impacts to ground water or surface water bodies are anticipated under the no action alternative. Use of the recharge basin would have an overall beneficial impact on the local ground water supply.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE AND SNL, LIVERMORE
The cumulative impact study area includes the eastern Livermore Valley surface water bodies and ground water basin. The no action alternative includes maintenance and upgrade projects that still have some potential to reduce ground water recharge areas. Maintenance and upgrade activities could increase storm water runoff to Arroyo Las Positas and Arroyo Seco. The overall increase in stormwater runoff from regional development 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. Because of the high infiltration rates within the arroyos, however, and the abundant remaining surface area for ground water recharge, and because the projects under the no action alternative are maintenance and upgrades occurring on built-up space that already includes a substantial amount of impervious surface, no significant adverse cumulative impacts from the no action alternative at the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore are anticipated.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
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 no action alternative 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.
5.2.10 NOISE
This section describes the noise impacts under the no action alternative.
LLNL Livermore Site
A short-term increase in exterior noise levels from the LLNL Livermore site could affect the residences nearest to the site until the maintenance and upgrade projects associated with the no action alternative are complete.
LLNL Site 300
Noise-sensitive receptors could experience a short-term increase in exterior noise levels from LLNL Site 300 as a result of construction-related activities under the no action alternative.
SNL, Livermore
The residence between SNL, Livermore and Tesla Road could experience a short-term increase in exterior noise levels until the no action alternative construction and maintenance projects are complete.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
Short-Term Construction Noise
As discussed for the proposed action, the no action alternative would result in increased noise levels generated by construction activities; however, these noise levels would not conflict with local noise standards or guidelines. In addition, it is assumed that the noise levels associated with the construction activity would be less under the no action alternative than under the proposed action since the no action alternative includes infrastructure improvements but does not include the construction of major new buildings or facilities that are part of the proposed action.
Long-Term Operational Noise
No increase in long-term operational noise levels would result from the no action alternative since it would not include any major alteration to noise-generating activities at the site, nor increase vehicular traffic associated with operation of the site.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
Short-Term Construction Noise
As discussed for the proposed action, the no action alternative would result in increased noise levels during construction phases of the infrastructure improvements and upgrades associated with this alternative. However, due to the remoteness of the site from noise-sensitive receptors, noise impacts would be less than significant.
Long-Term Operational Noise
No increase in operational noise levels at LLNL Site 300 would result from the no action alternative since it would not include any major alterations to noise-generating activities at the site, nor would it increase vehicular traffic associated with operation of the site. This is a less than significant impact.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
Short-Term Construction Noise
As discussed for the proposed action, the no action alternative would result in increased noise levels during construction phases of the infrastructure improvements and upgrades associated with this alternative. However, this would be considered a less than significant impact since it would not exceed local noise guidelines, nor would it conflict with a local noise ordinance.
Long-Term Operational Noise
No increase in operational noise levels at SNL, Livermore would result from the no action alternative since it would not include any major alterations to noise-generating activities at the site, nor would it increase vehicular traffic associated with operation of the site.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE, LLNL SITE 300, AND SNL, LIVERMORE
Cumulative traffic levels, and thus vehicular noise levels, would continue to increase on roadways in the vicinity of the three sites due to future developments proposed in the region. Table 5.2.10-1 presents noise conditions along a number of roadways in the vicinity of the sites, and is based on cumulative traffic conditions associated with future buildout of the area. As shown on the table, future noise levels along some roadways in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore could increase significantly over existing levels. This is due to increased traffic from surrounding developments. Near LLNL Site 300 (along Corral Hollow Road) the increase in cumulative roadway noise levels would not be significant. Traffic associated with the Laboratories is assumed to stay at current levels under the no action alternative. Thus, under this alternative the operation of the Laboratories would not contribute to potentially significant cumulative roadway noise levels.
Table 5.2.10-1 Future Roadway Noise as a Result of Cumulative Development with the No Action Alternative 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) | ||
| 70 CNEL | 65 CNEL | 60 CNEL | |||
| First Street, N. Mines Road to Las Positas Road | 63 | 135 | 290 | 70.8 | 2.2 |
| Vasco Road, I-580 to Patterson Pass Road | 69 | 141 | 301 | 69.5 | 0.5 |
| Vasco Road, Patterson Pass Road to East Avenue | < 57 | 113 | 239 | 68.0 | 0.3 |
| Vasco Road, East Avenue to Tesla Road | < 50 | < 50 | 82 | 62.5 | 2.3 |
| Greenville Road, I-580 to Patterson Pass Road (4 lanes) | 62 | 125 | 265 | 68.7 | 4.7 |
| Greenville Road, I-580 to Patterson Pass Road (2 lanes) | < 50 | 68 | 147 | 66.3 | 4.6 |
| Greenville Road, Patterson Pass Road to East Avenue | < 50 | 56 | 119 | 65.0 | 3.8 |
| Greenville Road, East Avenue to Tesla Road | < 50 | < 50 | < 50 | 56.8 | 0.2 |
| East Avenue, West of Buena Vista Avenue | < 50 | 99 | 211 | 67.6 | -0.8 |
| East Avenue, Buena Vista Avenue to Vasco Road | < 50 | 95 | 201 | 67.3 | 0.2 |
| East Avenue, Vasco Road to Greenville Road (4 lanes) | < 50 | 82 | 172 | 66.3 | 0.1 |
| East Avenue, Vasco Road to Greenville Road (2 lanes) | < 50 | 53 | 114 | 64.7 | 0.2 |
| 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 | 78 | 162 | 65.4 | 4.6 |
| Tesla Road, Buena Vista Avenue to Vasco Road | < 50 | < 50 | 94 | 63.4 | 1.3 |
| 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 | 54.6 | 2.0 |
| Corral Hollow Road, East of LLNL Site 300 | < 50 | < 50 | < 50 | 55.5 | 2.0 |
dBA = Decibel (A-weighted frequency).
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level.
5.2.11 TRAFFIC
LLNL Livermore Site
The LLNL Livermore site currently generates approximately 23,960 vehicle trips per day and contributes a high proportion of the vicinity's daily traffic. The no action alternative is not anticipated to result in any increase in Laboratory-related traffic.
LLNL Site 300
LLNL Site 300 currently generates approximately 700 vehicle trips per day. The no action alternative would not result in any increase in traffic generation at the site.
SNL, Livermore
SNL, Livermore currently generates approximately 3100 vehicle trips per day. No increase in traffic generation is anticipated in conjunction with the no action alternative; therefore, SNL, Livermore is not anticipated to contribute any additional traffic to the local circulation network above present levels.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE
Because the number of personnel at LLNL and SNL, Livermore is not anticipated to increase from present levels under the no action alternative, the Laboratories would not generate additional traffic beyond present levels and, therefore, would not contribute to projected traffic congestion in the vicinity of the Laboratory facilities. No traffic impacts are identified.
Since the number of personnel would not change with this alternative, public transportation usage would be the same as described under existing conditions. No impacts are identified.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
Because the number of employees at LLNL Site 300 is not anticipated to increase from present levels, the Laboratory would not generate additional traffic beyond present levels and would not contribute to increased traffic congestion. No traffic impacts are identified.
Although the amount of traffic related to LLNL Site 300 is not expected to increase along Corral Hollow Road roadway, employees are currently experiencing difficulty entering the site due to vehicles speeding along this roadway. To alleviate this situation, improvements are currently being planned by LLNL as part of the facilities revitalization, including reconfiguration of the internal gate structure and the parking area near the main entrance, and relocation of the main entrance slightly to the east of its present location along Corral Hollow Road. These improvements are in final design, and construction is anticipated to begin in April 1992.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND SNL, LIVERMORE
The cumulative traffic analysis for the no action alternative essentially represents an evaluation of the Laboratories at the present level of operations, but with the surrounding area developed to the buildout levels estimated in the general plans of the various city and county jurisdictions.
Projected future average daily traffic volumes at all key roadway segments in the vicinity of the project sites for the no action cumulative scenario are presented in Figure 5.2.11-1. Changes in traffic volumes in the immediate vicinity of the LLNL and SNL, Livermore sites can be determined by comparing the volumes in this figure with the existing traffic volumes presented in Figure 4.13-2. For example, on Vasco Road near the Laboratories, traffic would remain similar to 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 39,000 vehicles per day. This increase is largely due to the development of industrial uses in the area between the Laboratories and I-580. On Greenville Road, substantial traffic increases are also projected due to the development of these industrial land uses. In addition, it is anticipated that the projected congestion and lower travel speeds on Vasco Road would cause a diversion of traffic (primarily Laboratories-related) from the Vasco Road corridor to the Greenville Road corridor, particularly during peak periods. In the future general plan buildout scenario, approximately 40 percent more Laboratories-related traffic is projected to be on Greenville Road during peak hours. Section 5.1.11 and Appendix K include a description of the anticipated future traffic volumes on the Vasco Road and Greenville Road corridors (see Table 5.1.11-2 for a comparison of current and future peak-hour volumes of Laboratories-related traffic on these roadways). This shift in Laboratories-related traffic volumes is attributable to future development to the north of the Laboratories, not to an increase in traffic from the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore.
Cumulative levels of service and volume-to-capacity ratios at all study intersections under the no action alternative are shown in Table 5.1.11-1 in section 5.1.11. As shown in Table 5.1.11-1, the intersection of Greenville Road/East Avenue would change from the existing LOS A condition to an unacceptable LOS E. This increase would be caused by the diversion of traffic from Vasco Road to Greenville Road described above. Five intersections along First Street (at Las Positas Boulevard, North Mines Road, Southfront Road, I-580 westbound on/off ramps, and I-580 eastbound on/off ramps) would change from the existing LOS D to an unacceptable LOS F, primarily due to development of nearby land parcels. The Vasco Road interchange (at the l-580 westbound on/off ramps and at the l-580 eastbound on/off ramps) is projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Other intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service include East Avenue/North Mines Road, Vasco Road/Preston Avenue, and the intersections of Greenville Road with Southfront Road and Altamont Pass Road. The four study intersections along Vasco Road nearest the Laboratories (at Patterson Pass Road, Mesquite Way, Westgate Drive, and East Avenue) are all projected to operate at acceptable levels of service A, B, or C in the cumulative no action scenario.
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. These improvements, which are discussed in more detail in Appendix K, would alleviate the unacceptable traffic conditions discussed above and delineated in Table 5.1.11-1. The resulting projected traffic conditions following implementation of these improvements are delineated in Table 5.1.11-1 in the "Cumulative No Action Planned Roadway Network" column. It should be noted that these improvements would be the responsibility of the city or county jurisdiction in which the roadways are located. The no action alternative would not contribute to the significant cumulative traffic impacts of future growth described above.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
Under the future no action condition, it is projected that there would be approximately 1100 vehicles per day on Corral Hollow Road west of LLNL Site 300 and 1340 vehicles per day east of the site (see Figure 5.2.11-1), which is an increase of 400 and 490 vehicles per day, respectively, over the existing condition. None of this increase results from the no action alternative and the volumes are within the design capacity of the roadway. Therefore, no significant cumulative traffic impact is identified.
Traffic congestion at the interchange of Corral Hollow Road and the l-580 eastbound and westbound on/off ramps could increase to unacceptable levels from the present LOS A condition as a result of new development (including the proposed Tracy Hills development) in the vicinity of l-580 and LLNL Site 300. However, the amount of traffic at this intersection attributable to LLNL Site 300 is expected to remain unchanged from present conditions. The no action alternative would not contribute to projected significant cumulative traffic congestion.
5.2.12 UTILITIES AND ENERGY
This section focuses on impacts to utilities and energy under the no action alternative.
Water Consumption
LLNL Livermore Site
Based on projected 1992 estimates, the LLNL Livermore site consumes approximately 223 million gal of water annually (Parisotto, 1991b). For this EIS/EIR, this consumption is considered to be representative of future consumption rates for the no action alternative.
LLNL Site 300
Based on projected 1992 estimates, LLNL Site 300 consumes approximately 30 million gal of water annually (Parisotto, 1991b). For this EIS/EIR, this consumption is considered to be representative of future consumption rates for the no action alternative. LLNL is supplementing its water from onsite water wells with Hetch Hetchy water, and that supplier does not anticipate great difficulty in providing service.
SNL, Livermore
Based on projected 1992 estimates, the SNL, Livermore site consumes approximately 58 million gal of water annually (Parisotto, 1991b). For this EIS/EIR, this consumption is considered to be representative of future consumption rates for the no action alternative.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
The no action alternative, as described in Section 3, would not change current water consumption rates, and therefore this is a less than significant impact.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
The no action alternative, as described in Section 3, would not change current water consumption rates, and therefore this is a less than significant impact.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
The no action alternative, as described in Section 3, would not change current water consumption rates. Consumption of water at current levels results in a less than significant impact because there is a water conservation program in effect and the supplier does not anticipate great difficulty in providing service.
Electricity Consumption
LLNL Livermore Site
Based on projected 1992 estimates, the LLNL Livermore site consumes approximately 321 million kilowatt-hours per year (Hale, 1991). For this EIS/EIR, this consumption is considered to be representative of future consumption rates for the no action alternative.
LLNL Site 300
Based on projected 1992 estimates, LLNL Site 300 consumes approximately 1.5 million kilowatt-hours per year (Hale, 1991). For this EIS/EIR, this consumption is considered to be representative of future consumption rates for the no action alternative.
SNL, Livermore
Based on projected 1992 estimates, SNL, Livermore consumes approximately 40.1 million kilowatt-hours per year (Hale, 1991). For this EIS/EIR, this consumption is considered to be representative of future consumption rates for the no action alternative.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
The no action alternative, as described in Section 3, would not change current electrical consumption rates. Continued consumption of electricity at current levels results in a less than significant impact because there is an energy conservation program and the supplier does not anticipate great difficulty in providing service.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
The no action alternative, as described in Section 3, would not significantly impact electrical consumption rates. Continued consumption of electricity at current levels results in a less than significant impact because there is an energy conservation program and the supplier does not anticipate great difficulty in providing service.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
The no action alternative, as described in Section 3, would not significantly impact electrical consumption rates. Continued consumption of electricity at current levels results in a less than significant impact because there is an energy conservation program and the supplier does not anticipate great difficulty in providing service.
Fuel Consumption
LLNL Livermore Site and LLNL Site 300
Based on projected 1992 estimates, LLNL consumes a total of approximately 848,000 gal of various fuels per year (Holda, 1991; Frahm, 1991). For this EIS/EIR, this consumption rate is considered to be representative of future consumption rates for the no action alternative.
SNL, Livermore
Based on projected 1992 estimates, SNL, Livermore consumes a total of approximately 16,600 gal of various fuels per year (Allen, 1991). For this EIS/EIR, the consumption rate is considered to be representative of future consumption rates for the no action alternative.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE AND LLNL SITE 300
The no action alternative, as described in Section 3, would not significantly impact fuel consumption rates. Continued consumption of fuels at current levels results in a less than significant impact because there is an energy conservation program and the supplier does not anticipate great difficulty in providing service.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
The no action alternative, as described in Section 3, would not significantly impact fuel consumption rates. Continued consumption of fuel at current levels results in a less than significant impact because there is an energy conservation program and the supplier does not anticipate great difficulty in providing service.
Sewer Discharges
LLNL Livermore Site
Based on projected 1992 estimates, LLNL discharges approximately 107 million gal of sewage per year (Parisotto, 1991a). For this EIS/EIR, this rate is considered to be representative of future discharge rates for the no action alternative.
LLNL Site 300
Based on projected 1992 estimates, LLNL Site 300 discharges approximately 1.3 million gal of sewage per year. For this EIS/EIR, this rate is considered to be representative of future discharge rates under the no action alternative.
SNL, Livermore
Based on projected 1992 estimates, SNL, Livermore discharges approximately 27.7 million gal of sewage per year (Parisotto, 1991a). For this EIS/EIR, this rate is considered to be representative of future discharge rates for the no action alternative.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
The no action alternative, as described in Section 3, would not significantly impact sewage discharge rates. Continued discharge of sewage at current levels results in a less than significant impact because there is a waste conservation program, the City of Livermore sewer system capacity is more than adequate to receive these flows, and the City does not anticipate great difficulty in providing service.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
Activities under the no action alternative, as described in Section 3, would not impact sewage discharge capacity in the area. Continued discharge of sewage at current levels results in a less than significant impact because there is a waste conservation program and the current infrastructure can withstand current rates.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
The no action alternative, as described in Section 3, would not significantly impact sewage discharge rates. Continued discharge of sewage at current levels results in a less than significant impact because there is a waste conservation program and the City of Livermore sewer system does not anticipate great difficulty in providing service.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Under the no action alternative, the Laboratories would continue to consume utilities at rates equivalent to the projected 1992 estimates.
LLNL Livermore Site and SNL, Livermore
Water. Under the no action alternative, the LLNL Livermore site would consume an estimated 223 million gal of water annually, and SNL, Livermore would consume 58 million gal of water annually. The City of Livermore anticipates a 26.4 percent increase in population by the year 2000, and the City of Pleasanton projects a 43.4 percent increase by the year 2000. In conjunction with the no action water consumption at the Laboratories, this growth constitutes a significant adverse cumulative impact if the drought and other limiting factors continue. The steps necessary to mitigate this impact are not available to UC or DOE; therefore, it remains significant and unavoidable.
Electricity. Under the no action alternative, the LLNL Livermore site would consume 321 million kilowatt-hours per year, and SNL, Livermore would consume 40.1 million kilowatt-hours per year. The residential, commercial, and industrial electrical energy demand in the surrounding communities of Alameda County is anticipated to be about 12 percent. The Laboratories' electrical energy demands under the no action alternative represent about 3 percent of the total projected annual electricity demand for Alameda and San Joaquin counties. The Laboratories' contribution to the cumulative increase is less than significant. The utilities would increase their capacity to meet the anticipated energy demands.
Fuel. Under the no action alternative, the LLNL Livermore site would consume approximately 848,000 gal of various fuels per year, and SNL, Livermore would consume approximately 16,600 gal of various fuels per year. Because providers have indicated no shortage in available supplies, the Laboratories' contribution to the cumulative increase in fuel consumption in the area is less than significant.
Sewer Discharges. Under the no action alternative, the LLNL Livermore site would discharge 107 million gal of sewage per year, and SNL, Livermore would discharge 27.7 million gal of sewage per year. The Laboratories' contribution to the cumulative increase in sewage discharge in the area is less than significant.
LLNL Site 300
Water. Under the no action alternative, LLNL Site 300 water consumption would remain similar to the projected 1992 estimates of 30 million gal of water per year. Cumulative development in the vicinity of LLNL Site 300 (San Joaquin County is projected to increase by 47.7 percent by the year 2010) would increase demand for and consumption of water. The cumulative impact is significant and unavoidable. The LLNL Site 300 contribution to the cumulative increase is less than significant because the majority of its water is pumped from wells.
Electricity. Under the no action alternative, the LLNL Site 300 electricity consumption would remain similar to the projected 1992 consumption of 1.5 million kilowatt-hours per year. The LLNL Site 300 contribution to the cumulative increase (due to the increase in population) in the area is less than significant.
Fuel. Under the no action alternative, the LLNL Site 300 fuel consumption would remain similar to the projected 1992 consumption of approximately 78,000 gal per year. The LLNL Site 300 contribution to the cumulative increase in the area is less than significant.
Sewer Discharges. Under the no action alternative, the LLNL Site 300 sewer discharges would remain similar to the projected 1992 estimates of 1.3 million gal per year. Since the sewage discharges are within LLNL Site 300 (septic tanks, leach fields, cesspools, and an oxidation pond), the contribution to the cumulative increase in the area is less than significant.
5.2.13 MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
This section focuses on impacts to materials and waste management under the no action alternative.
Materials Management
LLNL Livermore Site
For this EIS/EIR, it is assumed that current rates of hazardous and radioactive materials use are representative rates for the no action alternative. Some Laboratory operations involve the use of various radionuclides, including, but not limited to, tritium, plutonium, and uranium. There are administrative limits for radionuclides within specific buildings (see Table 4.15-1 for additional details).
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.
Additionally, Laboratory research and development activities use a variety of hazardous materials. These include, but are not limited to, volatile organic compounds, fuel, and aromatic hydrocarbons (see Table A-25 in Appendix A for information on representative chemical inventories). The existing chemical inventory onsite is approximately 195,935 gal of liquids and 2,114,880 lb of solids and gases.
LLNL Site 300
For this EIS/EIR, it is assumed that current rates of hazardous and radioactive materials use are representative of rates for the no action alternative. The principal activity at LLNL Site 300 is testing with high explosives (HE). Present magazine storage limits for high explosives range up to 3000 lb. Present experiments in which high explosives are purposefully detonated use quantities up to several hundred pounds. The chemical inventory at LLNL Site 300 is approximately 84,404 gal of liquids, 100,000 lb of solids, and 1,895,400 cu ft of gases. Tritium use would continue at the firing tables with an administrative limit of 20 mg.
SNL, Livermore
For this EIS/EIR, it is assumed that current rates of hazardous and radioactive materials use are representative of rates for the no action alternative. The principal radionuclide used in SNL, Livermore's research and development facilities is tritium, used at Building 968, the Tritium Research Laboratory. The facility administrative limit is currently 50 g but would be reduced to 0 g under the no action alternative.
In addition, Laboratory research and development activities use a variety of hazardous materials. These include, but are not limited to, volatile organic compounds, fuel, and aromatic hydrocarbons. The representative chemical inventory onsite is approximately 3420 gal, 6320 lb, and 197,000 cu ft.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
For the no action alternative, there would be no change in quantities of materials managed at the LLNL Livermore site, although procedures and organization for managing these materials would continue to be modified or revised as necessary to meet changes in DOE and LLNL guidelines and policies. This would be considered a less than significant impact.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
Since materials at LLNL Site 300 are managed by the materials management organization at the LLNL Livermore site, the impact analysis for LLNL Site 300 is the same as that discussed above for the LLNL Livermore site.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
Like LLNL, SNL, Livermore handles all hazardous and radioactive material in accordance with applicable laws and regulations designed to protect the health and safety of employees, the general public, and the environment. Because there would be no substantial changes in the types and quantities of hazardous materials managed at SNL, Livermore, the relative impacts of continued materials use would be less than significant. The quantities of radioactive waste generated at the Tritium Research Laboratory would be reduced in accordance with the reduction in the tritium inventory to 0 g.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL AND SNL, LIVERMORE
The cumulative impacts for materials used under the no action alternative would be equivalent to or less than those discussed under the proposed action (see section 5.1.13). These impacts were considered less than significant, unless an accident were to occur during transports (see section 5.6 for analysis of transport accidents).
Waste Management
LLNL Livermore Site
For this EIS/EIR, it was assumed that waste generation rates projected for 1992 are representative of waste generation rates under the no action alternative. These waste generation rates are summarized below.
Radioactive Waste. The LLNL Livermore site generates approximately 287,000 lb of solid and 22,000 gal of liquid low-level radioactive waste (LLW) annually. Also the site generates approximately 2700 cu ft of transuranic waste annually.
Hazardous Waste. The LLNL Livermore site generates approximately 567,000 lb and 309,000 gal of hazardous waste annually.
Mixed Wastes. The LLNL Livermore site generates approximately 45,000 lb and 23,000 gal of mixed waste annually.
Medical Waste. The LLNL Livermore site generates approximately 2600 lb of medical waste annually.
LLNL Site 300
For this EIS/EIR, it was assumed that waste generation rates projected for 1992 are representative of waste generation rates under the no action alternative. These waste generation rates are summarized below.
Radioactive Waste. LLNL Site 300 generates approximately 300,000 lb of solid low-level radioactive waste (LLW) annually.
Hazardous Waste. LLNL Site 300 generates approximately 37,000 lb and 41,000 gal of hazardous waste annually.
Mixed Wastes. LLNL Site 300 generates approximately 2000 lb of mixed waste annually.
Medical Waste. LLNL Site 300 generates approximately 12 lb of medical waste annually.
SNL, Livermore
For this EIS/EIR, it was assumed that waste generation rates projected for 1992 are representative of waste generation rates under the no action alternative. These waste generation rates are summarized below.
Radioactive Waste. SNL, Livermore generates approximately 8860 lb and 7670 gal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) annually. This generation rate would be reduced in accordance with the reductions in tritium inventory. Decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory would result in generation of low-level waste estimated at 100,000 lb over the 3 years of the project.
Hazardous Waste. SNL, Livermore generates approximately 6320 lb and 3940 gal of hazardous waste annually.
Mixed Wastes. SNL, Livermore generates approximately 73 lb of solid mixed waste and 250 lb of scintillation cocktails annually. Decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory would result in generation of an additional quantity of liquid mixed wastes estimated at 310 gal over the 3 years of the project.
Medical Waste. SNL, Livermore generates approximately 124 lb of medical waste annually.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
Under the no action alternative, the LLNL Livermore site would continue to generate radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and medical wastes, but there would be no increases in rates for these wastes. With the exception of mixed waste storage, impacts associated with the no action alternative would be less than significant. Because mixed waste generation would require onsite storage beyond storage limits prescribed by RCRA, the generation of any mixed waste is considered to have a significant and unavoidable impact on the environment. Even though waste generation rates (including U-AVLIS) are not projected to increase under the no action alternative, available capacity for mixed waste storage is expected to be exceeded within the next 10 years. Therefore, the discussion for Impact 13.1.3 also applies to the no action alternative.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
At LLNL Site 300, the no action alternative would impact waste management in the same manner as at the LLNL Livermore site because these two sites are operated under the same waste management program. LLNL Site 300 mixed waste is stored at the LLNL Livermore site.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
Under the no action alternative, SNL, Livermore will continue to generate radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and medical wastes, but there would be no increase in generation rates for these wastes. With the exception of mixed waste storage, impacts associated with the no action alternative would be less than significant. Because mixed waste generation would require storage beyond storage limits prescribed by RCRA, the generation of these wastes is considered to have a significant and unavoidable impact on the environment. Therefore, the discussion for Impact 13.3.3 also applies to the no action alternative.
The decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory would result in low-level and mixed waste generation over the 3 years of the project. These generation rates are discussed in Impacts 13.3.6 and 13.3.7 for the proposed action alternative, and also apply to the no action alternative.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Under the no action alternative, the Laboratories would continue to generate waste at the rates projected for 1992 (see above). These wastes are managed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations designed to protect workers, the public, and the environment. Since additional waste generation is not projected, the Laboratories' contribution to the cumulative impacts is less than significant.
5.2.14 OCCUPATIONAL PROTECTION
This section discusses the relative impact on occupational protection from implementation of the no action alternative.
Occupational Protection-Radiation Protection
LLNL Livermore Site
Radiation doses to workers at the LLNL Livermore site are well within DOE guidelines for protection of workers. Under the no action alternative the administrative limit for tritium at Building 331, the Hydrogen Research Facility, will be reduced from 300 g to 5 g. No additional tritium operations will be moved to Building 391, the Inertial Confinement Fusion Facility, or to Building 298, the Fusion Target Fabrication Facility.
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.
LLNL Site 300
There are currently no facilities at LLNL Site 300 that contribute significantly to the collective radiation dose to workers, and no changes will occur under the no action alternative that would affect radiation doses to workers.
SNL, Livermore
The radiation doses to workers at SNL, Livermore are well within DOE guidelines for protection of worker safety. Under the no action alternative the administrative limit for tritium would be reduced from 50 g to 0 g. There are no new facilities or modifications of existing facilities in the no action alternative that would affect these exposures.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
Internal radiation doses from exposure to tritium would be reduced at Building 331, the Hydrogen Research Facility, by reducing the amount of tritium handled. This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
The site facility revitalization planned under the no action alternative, consisting primarily of building, equipment, and road improvements, would result in no additional radiation exposures. This is a less than significant impact.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
Exposure levels at SNL, Livermore would remain consistent with the reduction in tritium inventory under the no action alternative. This is a less than significant impact and may be beneficial.
The decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory would increase radiation exposure of decontamination workers. This increase is discussed in Impact 14.3.2 under the proposed action alternative, and also applies to the no action alternative.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS—LLNL AND SNL, LIVERMORE
Because radiation exposures at LLNL and SNL, Livermore are well below regulatory standards, the cumulative impacts to workers from radiation exposures associated with the no action alternative would depend on their receiving additional exposures offsite. Potential exposure to external radiation is highly regulated and the likelihood of individuals receiving exposures beyond accepted safety limits is very small, and is considered a less than significant impact.
Toxic Substances and Physical Hazards
LLNL Livermore Site
As under current conditions, exposures of workers to toxic chemicals would remain well within DOE safety guidelines under the no action alternative.
LLNL Site 300
There are no projects under the no action alternative that would impact worker exposure to toxic substances and physical hazards at LLNL Site 300.
SNL, Livermore
There are no new projects under the no action alternative that would increase exposure of workers to toxic substances at SNL, Livermore.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
There are no projects at the LLNL Livermore site included in the no action alternative that would increase worker exposure to toxic substances. This is a less than significant impact.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
There are no projects at LLNL Site 300 included in the no action alternative that would increase worker exposure to toxic substances. This is a less than significant impact.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
There are no projects at SNL, Livermore under the no action alternative that would increase worker exposure to toxic substances. This is a less than significant impact.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
LLNL and SNL, Livermore
Because toxic materials exposures at LLNL and SNL, Livermore are well below regulatory standards, the cumulative impacts to workers would depend on their receiving additional exposures offsite. Potential exposure to these materials is highly regulated and the likelihood of cumulative impacts is very small and is considered a less than significant impact.
5.2.15 SITE CONTAMINATION
This section evaluates impacts upon soil and sediment, surface water, and ground water contamination at the LLNL Livermore site, LLNL Site 300, and SNL, Livermore under the no action alternative.
LLNL and SNL, Livermore
LLNL and SNL, Livermore are cleaning up affected soils and ground water that pose a threat to human health and the environment. As described in section 4.17, ongoing activities of the Environmental Restoration Program include identification and remediation efforts. These activities will continue under the no action alternative at both facilities.
IMPACTS—LLNL LIVERMORE SITE
Selection of the no action alternative would result in no increase in erosion and dispersion of excavated contaminated soils. The possibility of release of site contaminants to air or surface water would be minimized. Some worker exposure could result from remediation activities conducted in accordance with the Federal Facilities Agreement and regulatory requirements, but these impacts are minimal compared to those that would result if the restoration program
were not implemented. The health risk assessments and associated health and safety plans that are prepared before any action that will disturb contaminated soils would specify measures to be implemented to minimize risks to worker health and to the environment. Minimal waste is expected to be generated as a result of the site restoration program.
IMPACTS—LLNL SITE 300
Under the no action alternative, environmental restoration activities would continue to address soil, sediment, surface water, and ground water contamination of LLNL Site 300. The remedial investigation/feasibility study process is still underway and no final decision has been made on potential alternatives. Once a final decision is made, appropriate NEPA documentation would follow. Risks of human exposure to site contaminants would not increase under this alternative. As at LLNL Livermore, health risk assessments and health and safety plans would be prepared prior to disruption of any contaminated area, and appropriate mitigation measures implemented.
IMPACTS—SNL, LIVERMORE
Environmental restoration activities currently underway would continue at SNL, Livermore under the no action alternative. As SNL, Livermore is not on the National Priorities List, the restoration activities are not being conducted pursuant to CERCLA. The wastes generated from the restoration activities have already been factored into the waste inventories specified in section 4.15.2.3. Potential impacts from historic contamination would continue to be addressed as part of the no action alternative. No activities under the no action alternative would result in impacts to contaminated areas at SNL, Livermore.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
LLNL and SNL, Livermore
Environmental restoration would continue at the same level of activity under the no action alternative as under the proposed action at LLNL and SNL, Livermore. The cumulative impacts for the no action alternative, therefore, would be equivalent to or less than those discussed in the proposed action (see section 5.1.5), which are less than significant.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
