Table 3-10
Comparison Summary of
Proposed Action and Alternativesa
Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratoryb
| Environmental Component Existing Conditions | Proposed Action | No Action | Modification of Operations | Shutdown and Decommissioning |
| Land Use | ||||
| Land uses at both LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 are compatible with surrounding areas and with the land use plans of local jurisdictions. | LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300: Additional development would occur (a 9 percent increase in square footage is projected at each site) with uses consistent with existing facilities (LS); potential for limiting access to a segment of East Avenue upon acquisition by DOE (LS); no contribution to cumulative losses of agricultural land or open space resulting from buildout of surrounding areas. | No change to existing land uses or amount of onsite development (no impact). No contribution to cumulative land use changes. | Consistent with proposed action (LS); acquiring property east of LLNL Livermore site (and SNL, Livermore) for an additional buffer zone could affect local land uses within the acquired property and require changes to county land use plans (S). | No direct impacts on land uses at the LLNL Livermore site or LLNL Site 300 (LS); evaluation of potential impacts of future land uses is beyond the scope of this EIS/EIR. |
| Socioeconomics | ||||
| Existing employment | Assumed to increase by approximately 20 percent over 10 years (total increase of approximately 2,050) (LS); cumulative effect would be creation of additional employment opportunities in region (B). | No increase over present levels (no impact). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS, B) | Eventual loss of most jobs at both LLNL sites; employment reduced to maintenance staff in 5–10 years (SU). |
| LLNL Livermore site -Approx. 11,200 LLNL Site 300 - Approx. 200 | ||||
| Population and Housing | ||||
| Alameda County population approximately 1.3 million; population of four local cities 164,000; San Joaquin County population approximately 480,600; present housing supplies adequate. | Residential population in region is estimated to increase by about 3800 people (LS) and demand for housing is estimated to increase by approximately 2050 units (SU). Cumulative development could result in an increase in housing demand in the region that may not be accommodated by the existing supply (SU). | No increase over present levels; no contribution to cumulative housing demand (no impact). | Consistent with the proposed action (SU) | Some LLNL employees would leave the area in search of employment opportunities; decrease in local area population and demand for housing; no contribution to cumulative housing demand would result (LS). |
| Economic factors | ||||
| Annual payroll - $432 million
Other local expenditures - $467 million |
Increase in payroll of approximately $86.4 million (20 percent increase) could result; expenditures on goods and services would also be expected to increase (B). | No increase over present levels (no impact). | Consistent with the proposed action (B) | Substantial short-term loss of payroll and local procurement; local economies anticipated to be adversely impacted (SU). |
| Community Services | ||||
| Fire protection and emergency services | ||||
| LLNL provides onsite services at LLNL and SNL, Livermore sites and has mutual aid agreements with local communities. | May result in an increased demand for services both on- and offsite (LS). Planned and proposed projects in the region would contribute to a cumulative demand for fire protection and emergency services in the area; however, the proposed action would not contribute to this impact (no impact). | Demand for services is expected to be the same as under existing conditions (no impact). Planned and proposed projects in the area would contribute to a cumulative demand for service in the area; however, the no action alternative would not contribute to this impact (no impact). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Eventual decrease in demand for services to maintenance level; mutual aid agreements with local communities would eventually cease (LS). Planned and proposed projects would contribute to the cumulative demand for service; however, the shutdown alternative would not contribute to this impact (no impact). |
| Police and security services | ||||
| LLNL has its own security services and has emergency response agreements with local communities. | May result in an increased demand for services onsite (LS). Planned and proposed projects in the area would contribute to a cumulative demand for police service in the area; however, the proposed action would not contribute to this impact (no impact). | The demand for services is expected to be the same as under existing conditions (no impact). Planned and proposed projects in the area would contribute to a cumulative demand for service in the area; however, the no action alternative would not contribute to this impact (no impact). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Eventual decrease in demand for services to maintenance levels; emergency agreements with local communities would eventually cease (LS). Planned and proposed projects in the area would contribute to the cumulative demand for service; however, the shutdown alternative would not contribute to this impact (no impact). |
| Schools | ||||
| Some school districts in the region have existing capacity problems, including the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District, which serves approximately 1700 students who have at least one parent employed at LLNL. | Would generate an estimated 800 students in communities where workers reside (SU). Cumulative development in the area would contribute additional students who may not be accommodated in some school districts (SU). | No change from present levels expected (no impact). Planned and proposed projects in the region would contribute to a cumulative demand for service in the area; however, the no action alternative would not contribute to this impact (no impact). | Consistent with the proposed action (SU) | Eventual decrease in demand for school facilities to near zero (B); funding through federal Impact Aid Program would be reduced accordingly (S). Planned and proposed projects in the region would contribute to a cumulative demand for school service, but this alternative would not contribute to cumulative school service demands (no impact). |
| Nonhazardous solid waste disposal | ||||
| LLNL Livermore site | ||||
| Approximately 24,000 cu yd of waste are collected onsite annually and disposed of in the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill, which has a remaining lifespan of approximately 17 years; Alameda County has plans to increase landfill capacity within the county. | Would increase demand for disposal services at Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill due to an estimated additional 4400 cu yd of nonhazardous solid waste annually (LS). Although cumulative development in the region would also increase the need for disposal services at the landfill, this increase in the demand could be accommodated (LS). | No change from present generation rate (no impact); no contribution to increase in cumulative demand for services (no impact). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Could result in a short-term increased need for nonhazardous solid waste disposal services of Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill and, due to cumulative development in service area, would contribute to increased demand for these services (LS). |
| LLNL Site 300 | ||||
| Approximately 2200 cu yd of waste are collected onsite annually and disposed of in the Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill. The Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill is scheduled to close in 1995, and San Joaquin County has yet to identify alternative disposal sites. | Would increase demand for disposal services at Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill due to an estimated additional 550 cu yd of nonhazardous solid waste annually (SU); cumulative development in the area would increase demand for disposal services beyond capacity of landfill (SU). | No change from current generation rate; however, due to capacity problems at this landfill, no action would contribute to potentially significant effects (SU). | Consistent with the proposed action (SU) | Could result in a short-term increased need for nonhazardous solid waste disposal services of Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill (scheduled to close in 1995) and, due to cumulative development in service area, would contribute to increased demand for these services (SU). |
| Prehistoric and Historic Cultural Resources | ||||
| LLNL Livermore site | ||||
| No prehistoric resources recorded on the LLNL Livermore site. Historic value of the LLNL Livermore site currently being determined. | No prehistoric or historic cultural resources are known or anticipated. Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act will identify and delineate mitigation for potential impacts to prehistoric and historic resources (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Possible increased effect on these resources from cleanup activities (LS). |
| Because the full extent of cumulative impacts to regional prehistoric and historic resources cannot be determined as part of this EIS/EIR, a potentially significant cumulative impact is identified (S). | Cumulative impacts are potentially significant (S). | Consistent with the proposed action (S) | Cumulative impacts are potentially significant (S). | |
| LLNL Site 300 | ||||
| Twenty-four cultural resources recorded on LLNL Site 300: 3 prehistoric sites, 20 historic sites, and 1 site with a prehistoric and historic component. Historic sites at LLNL Site 300 may also be eligible for listing in National Register of Historic Places. | No prehistoric or historic cultural resources are expected to be affected. Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act will identify and delineate mitigation for potential impacts to prehistoric and historic resources (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Possible increased effect on these resources from cleanup activities (LS). |
| Because the full extent of cumulative impacts to prehistoric and historic resources within the study area cannot be determined as part of EIS/EIR, a potentially significant cumulative impact is identified (S). | Cumulative impacts are potentially significant (S). | Consistent with the proposed action (S) | Cumulative impacts are potentially significant (S). | |
| Aesthetics and Scenic Resources | ||||
| Facilities are visible from various land uses and roadways in the vicinity. Designated scenic corridors in the vicinity of the LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 include parts of Greenville Road, So. Vasco Road, Patterson Pass Road, Tesla Road, and I-580. | Minor alteration of the existing visual character of the sites; minor changes to views from designated scenic roadways (LS); could potentially contribute a small increment to cumulative effects on visual resources; however, it is too speculative to determine whether or not these potential effects are significant. | Minor construction-related visual effects would result (LS); no contribution to cumulative visual effects would occur (no impact). | Individual impacts at both sites consistent with proposed action (LS), except that visual impacts associated with possible land acquisition for buffer zone at LLNL Livermore site cannot be determined at this time; cumulative impacts consistent with proposed action. | Potential short-term impacts during demolition of existing structures (LS); evaluation of potential visual impacts of new uses is beyond the scope of this EIS/EIR. |
| Geology | ||||
| Geologic resources | ||||
| Nearby resources include aggregates, clay, coal, silica, a few fossils, and a small oil field to the east. These are too far away to be affected. | No individual or cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | No individual or cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS). | No impact anticipated (LS). |
| Geologic hazards | ||||
| Area seismicity makes earthquake-resistant construction necessary; little potential for landslides. | Earthquake-resistant construction required at both the LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 (LS); potentially strong ground motion at LLNL Site 300 would require that all new structures be located more than 50 ft from active fault trace (potentially S). | No individual or cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | Earthquake-resistant construction required (potentially S). | Earthquake-resistant shutdown and demolition procedures required (potentially S). |
| Ecology | ||||
| Vegetation | ||||
| LLNL Livermore site | ||||
| Vegetation in built-up areas highly altered by human activity. Relatively undeveloped introduced grasslands in security zone and a remnant area of wooded riparian vegetation along Arroyo Seco. | No additional individual or cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | No additional individual or cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Consistent with the no action alternative; evaluation of future impacts from new uses is beyond the scope of this EIS/EIR. |
| LLNL Site 300 | ||||
| Most vegetation unaltered by human activity. Mosaic of diverse plant communities, including large stand of native perennial grasslands. | Loss of 2.4 acres of disturbed and introduced grassland plant communities. No cumulative impact anticipated (LS). | Loss of 18.5 acres of introduced grassland plant communities. No cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | May result in degradation of existing plant communities and loss of the native perennial grasslands. Cumulative impacts cannot be determined at this time and are beyond the scope of this EIS/EIR. |
| Wildlife | ||||
| LLNL Livermore site | ||||
| Site supports species adapted to living in areas that are highly altered by human activity. Grassland and remnant riparian habitats support additional species. | No additional individual or cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | No additional individual or cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Consistent with the no action alternative (LS). |
| LLNL Site 300 | ||||
| Highly diverse assemblage of wildlife species due to unaltered nature of habitats. | Loss of 2.4 acres of marginal wildlife habitat. No cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | Loss of 18.5 acres of introduced grassland wildlife habitat. No cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Altering existing land use controls could result in degradation of wildlife habitat and reduction in wildlife species diversity. Cumulative impacts cannot be determined until new land uses are determined (S). |
| Threatened and Endangered Species | ||||
| LLNL Livermore site | ||||
| No threatened or endangered or other sensitive species observed. | Threatened, endangered, or other sensitive species not observed. No cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | Threatened, endangered, or other sensitive species not observed. No cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Consistent with the no action alternative (LS). |
| LLNL Site 300 | ||||
| One endangered and seven candidate species and/or species of concern occur onsite. Potential habitat for one endangered, two threatened, and one candidate species occurs onsite. | Sensitive species and sensitive-species habitats may be impacted by proposed action. This impact, including any potential cumulative impacts, can be mitigated (LS). | Sensitive species and sensitive-species habitats may be impacted. This impact, including any potential cumulative impacts, can be mitigated (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Altering existing land use controls could result in degradation of sensitive-species habitat and potential reduction in sensitive species could occur. Cumulative impacts cannot be determined until new land uses are determined (S). |
| Wetlands | ||||
| LLNL Livermore site | ||||
| 0.36 acres of wetlands along Arroyo Los Positas. | No additional or cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | No additional individual or cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Consistent with the no action alternative (LS). |
| LLNL Site 300 | ||||
| 4.88 acres of natural wetlands, including one vernal pool, and 1.88 acres of artificial wetlands occur onsite. | Loss of 0.5 acre of artificial wetlands. This individual impact, including any potential cumulative impacts, would be less than significant (LS). | No additional individual or cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Elimination of artificial wetlands may occur. Degradations of natural wetlands may occur. Cumulative impacts cannot be determined (S). |
| Air Quality | ||||
| Criteria pollutants | ||||
| Area is currently in attainment of the ambient air quality standards except for ozone and particulates. The LLNL area is considered "moderate" nonattainment for ozone. Offsite monitoring combines emissions of both the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore. Output of criteria pollutants is 0.2 ton per day, of which 17 percent is volatile organic compounds, 46 percent NOx, 2 percent particulates, 1 percent SOx, 9 percent CO, and 25 percent chlorofluorocarbons. | These outputs may increase 9 percent for the LLNL Livermore site, 9 percent for LLNL Site 300. Particulates and NOx, an ozone precursor, are less than 0.03 percent of area releases (LS), but any release into a nonattainment area is significant. Impacts would occur on both individual and cumulative bases (SU). | These emissions would remain at present levels (LS), but any release into a nonattainment area is significant and unavoidable (SU). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS, SU) | Short-term impacts during decommissioning (SU); when cleanup operations cease, exposures will be near zero (B). |
| Toxic air contaminants | ||||
| Toxic air contaminant emissions from LLNL Livermore site are at levels of human health risk and hazard index that are deemed acceptable by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Toxic air contaminant emission measurements from LLNL Site 300 are currently being completed. | Toxic air contaminant emissions may increase 9 percent at LLNL Livermore site, but would remain within acceptable human health risk and hazard indices (LS). | These emissions would remain at existing levels (LS). | Toxic air contaminant emissions would be reduced from current levels (B). | Toxic air contaminant levels would be reduced to zero (B). |
| Beryllium | ||||
| Maximum monthly beryllium concentrations at the perimeter of the LLNL Livermore site and downwind of LLNL Site 300 are less than 0.6 percent of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District standard. | At LLNL Livermore site, beryllium emissions are well below standards (LS). At LLNL Site 300, beryllium emissions may decrease with construction of contained firing facility (B). | Emissions would remain at current levels (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Specific beryllium information not identified. Short-term impacts during decommission-ing (S); when cleanup operations cease, exposure will be near zero (B). |
| Radiation | ||||
| Radiation exposure to the public during 1990 primarily from tritium (14 percent through inhalation, the remainder through ingestion of locally grown foodstuffs): | Individual and cumulative exposures are anticipated to remain the same or decrease as tritium and plutonium limits decrease (B). | Individual or cumulative exposures to remain the same or decrease (LS). | Exposures consistent with the proposed action (B). | Same as present conditions until operations cease, with eventual reduction to near zero (LS). |
| Offsite exposures are calculated for LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore combined. Eighty percent of the tritium release is from the LLNL Livermore site. No tritium releases from LLNL Site 300. Collective dose to 6.3 million people: 31 person-rem (0.02 risk of a fatal cancer). | Individual and cumulative exposures are expected to remain the same or be reduced (LS). | Individual and cumulative exposures to remain the same or decrease (LS). | Exposures consistent with the proposed action (B). | Continued exposure during cleanup (LS), but eventual cumulative reduction to near zero (B). |
| Maximally exposed individual dose on northeast fenceline 0.25 mrem (1×10-7 risk of a fatal cancer). | Individual and cumulative exposures are expected to remain the same or be reduced (LS). | Individual and cumulative exposures to remain the same or decrease (LS). | Exposures reduced from the proposed action (B). | Continued exposure during cleanup (LS), but eventual cumulative reduction to near zero (B). |
| Water | ||||
| Surface water | ||||
| No perennial streams or bodies of water present. For wetlands, see the Ecology section. There are virtually no floodplains of concern. | No individual or cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | No individual or cumulative impacts anticipated due to continued maintenance and upgrade projects (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | No individual or cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). |
| Ground water | ||||
| Underlies the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore, flowing generally westward. Contamination of this water is discussed below in the Site Contamination section. | Ground water flows would not be affected; no individual or cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | No individual or cumulative impacts anticipated (LS). |
| Noise | ||||
| LLNL Livermore site | ||||
| Noise sources include vehicular traffic; heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment; and the High Explosives Application Facility construction activities. No noise standards are currently being exceeded. | Short-term increase in noise levels during construction (LS); long-term increase in noise levels because of increased traffic volumes (up to 0.7 dBA increase for LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore combined) (LS); increase in roadway noise levels (up to 4.7 dBA increase due to cumulative traffic volumes) (SU). | Increase in short-term construction noise (LS); long-term roadway noise levels would be same as existing conditions (no impact); no contribution to increases in cumulative roadway noise levels (no impact). | Short-term construction noise and existing plus project traffic–related noise effects consistent with the proposed action (LS); cumulative traffic-related noise effects consistent with the proposed action (SU). | Short-term increase in noise levels associated with demolition (LS); long-term reduction in roadway noise levels (B). |
| LLNL Site 300 | ||||
| Noise sources include vehicular traffic; heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment; construction activities; and high explosives testing. No noise standards are currently being exceeded. | Short-term increase in noise during construction (LS); proposed contained firing facility may reduce high explosive testing noise (B); additional impulse-type noise generation from Cheap Access to Orbit Project (LS); increase in roadway noise levels from increased traffic volume (up to 0.5 dBA increase along Corral Hollow Road) (LS); increase in cumulative roadway noise levels (up to 2.0 dBA increase along Corral Hollow Road) because of cumulative traffic volumes (LS). | Increase in short-term construction noise (LS); long-term roadway noise levels same as existing conditions (no impact); no contribution to increases in cumulative roadway noise levels (no impact). | Short-term construction noise and onsite noise sources consistent with the proposed action (LS); existing plus project and cumulative roadway noise levels consistent with the proposed action (LS). | Short-term increase in noise levels associated with possible demolition activities (LS); long-term reduction in roadway noise levels (B). |
| Traffic | ||||
| LLNL Livermore site | ||||
| The Laboratory currently generates approximately 23,960 vehicle trips per day. Two study intersections near the LLNL Livermore site are congested during peak hours beyond the acceptable level of service. | LLNL traffic is projected to increase by 4000 vehicles, for a total of approximately 27,960 vehicle trips per day. Increased employee traffic would lead to increased traffic congestion in the vicinity of the site (LS). | Consistent with existing conditions (no impact). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Short-term increase in traffic from cleanup activities (LS); long-term reduction in traffic congestion (B). |
| Under the cumulative scenario, increased LLNL traffic would contribute to significant and unavoidable traffic congestion at certain intersections (SU). | Cumulative buildout of the surrounding area would result in increased traffic congestion; however, LLNL would not contribute to this increased congestion (no impact). | Cumulative impacts consistent with the proposed action (SU). | Beneficial impact on cumulative traffic congestion in the vicinity (B). | |
| LLNL Site 300 | ||||
| LLNL Site 300 currently generates approximately 700 vehicle trips per day. No unacceptable traffic congestion at present. | LLNL traffic is projected to increase by 75 vehicles for a total of 875 vehicle trips per day at this site; increased employee traffic would contribute to congestion in the vicinity (LS). | Consistent with existing conditions (no impact). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Short-term increase in traffic from cleanup activities (LS); long-term reduction in traffic congestion (B). |
| Under the cumulative scenario, increased LLNL traffic would contribute to significant traffic congestion at the I-580/Corral Hollow Road interchange (SU). | Cumulative buildout of the surrounding area would result in increased traffic congestion; however, LLNL would not contribute to this congestion (no impact). | Consistent with the proposed action (SU) | Beneficial impact on cumulative traffic congestion in the vicinity (B). | |
| Utilities and Energy | ||||
| Water | ||||
| LLNL Livermore site | ||||
| Primary water source is Hetch Hetchy aqueduct. The 5-year average consumption was 261.8 million gal per year. The projected FY 1992 estimate is 239.7 million gal per year. | Assumed 9 percent growth of the Laboratory would result in increase of water use to approximately 261.3 million gal per year. Given the continuing drought, cumulative use is significant (S). | No increase in current use (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Demand during cleanup unknown; eventual decrease to maintenance level (B). |
| Cumulative development of LLNL, SNL, Livermore, and nearby industry would further impact this use (S). | ||||
| LLNL Site 300 | ||||
| Primary water source is ground water wells. Consumption is trending downward. The 5-year average consumption was 31.8 million gal per year; FY 1992 estimated consumption is 30 million gal. | An assumed increase of 9 percent would result in use of an additional 2.7 million gal per year. | No increase in current use (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Demand during cleanup unknown; eventual decrease to maintenance level (B). |
| Electricity | ||||
| LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 | ||||
| Power is purchased from PG&E and the Western Area Power Administration. Power use has been gradually increasing. The 5-year average at LLNL Livermore site was 321 million kWh annually; the annual usage at LLNL Site 300 is estimated at 1.5 million kWh. The projected 1992 estimate for LLNL Livermore site is 345 million kWh. | A 9 percent increase proportional to program growth on individual and cumulative basis would amount to 376.5 million kWh per year at LLNL Livermore site and 1.64 million kWh per year at LLNL Site 300 (LS). | No individual or cumulative increase in current usage (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Demand during cleanup unknown, eventual cumulative decrease to maintenance level (B). |
| Fuel | ||||
| LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 | ||||
| Gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, liquid propane gas, and natural gas consumption rates vary year to year. The 5-year average annual usage at both sites was gas, 496,000 gal; diesel, 86,600 gal; jet fuel, 156,000 gal; LPG, 10,400 gal. The projected 1992 estimate is 815,000 gal of total fuel (gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, and LPG) per year. In additional, the 5-year average fuel oil usage at LLNL Site 300 was 78,000 gal annually. | Projected 9 percent increase proportional to program growth, with little individual or cumulative impact on supply, amounting to a total of 888,200 gal (LS). | Individual and cumulative consumption will continue at current levels (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Demand during cleanup unknown; eventual cumulative decrease to maintenance level (B). |
| Sewage discharge | ||||
| LLNL Livermore site | ||||
| The 5-year average of sewage discharge is 113 million gal per year, which is disposed of via City of Livermore sewer system. LLNL Site 300 discharges approximately 3500 gal per day into its own septic systems. | Increase of 9 percent, constituting a significant individual and cumulative impact (S). | Continued individual and cumulative discharge at current levels (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (S, LS) | Demand during cleanup unknown; eventual cumulative decrease to near zero (LS). |
| LLNL Site 300 | ||||
| Disposed of in septic tanks and leach fields or cesspools. | Increase of 9 percent. No individual or cumulative impact expected, as discharge and treatment are self-contained (LS). | Continued individual and cumulative discharge at present levels (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (S, LS) | Demand during cleanup unknown; eventual cumulative decrease to near zero (LS). |
| Materials and Waste Management | ||||
| Materials Management | ||||
| Controlled materials include explosives, radioactive materials, special nuclear materials, classified substances and parts, and precious metals. | ||||
| LLNL Livermore site | ||||
| About 210,000 gal and 2.3 million lb of various chemicals are stored onsite. The administrative limit for tritium in Building 331, with the greatest quantity of this radionuclide, is 5 g (50,000 Ci); the limit for plutonium in Buildings 332 and 334 is 700 kg; the limit for natural and depleted uranium in Building 493 is 80,000 kg. | Quantities of chemicals may increase by as much as 9 percent. The administrative limit for plutonium at Buildings 332 and 334 will be reduced from 700 kg to 200 kg. Safe handling and operating procedures will continue to be emphasized (LS). | Individual and cumulative quantities and limits will remain at current levels except that the administrative limit for plutonium at Buildings 332 and 334 will be reduced from 700 kg to 200 kg (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Initial increase in handling and disposal of wastes, although all transport in accordance with DOT policies (S); eventual cumulative decrease to near zero (B). |
| LLNL Site 300 | ||||
| About 84,000 gal, 100,000 lb, and 1.9 million cu ft of various chemicals are stored onsite. Plutonium, tritium, and uranium are sometimes present onsite in small quantities for individual experiments. | Quantities of chemicals may increase by as much as 9 percent. The tritium administrative limit for the firing tables would resume at 20 mg. Safe handling and operating procedures will continue to be emphasized. This applies on both an individual and a cumulative basis (LS). | Chemical quantities would remain consistent with current levels (LS); the tritium administrative limit for firing tables would resume at 20 mg. | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Initial increase in handling and disposal of wastes, although all transport in accordance with DOT policies (S); eventual contribution to cumulative impacts decreasing to near zero (B). |
| Waste Management | ||||
| LLNL Livermore site | ||||
| The site produces radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and medical waste. Quantities in 1992 are projected to be: radioactive, 22,000 gal and 287,000 lb of low-level plus 2,700 cu ft of transuranic waste; hazardous, 309,000 gal and 567,000 lb; mixed, 23,000 gal and 45,000 lb; and medical, 2600 lb. | Quantities of waste are projected to increase by 9 percent, resulting in additional waste volumes of: radioactive, 2,000 gal and 26,000 lb of low-level plus 240 cu ft of transuranic waste; hazardous, 28,000 gal and 51,000 lb; mixed, 2,100 gal and 4,600 lb; and medical, 230 lb (LS). | Quantities of waste generated would remain at current levels (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Initial increase in hazardous, radioactive, and mixed waste generation from decommissioning activities; eventual cumulative decrease to near zero (LS). |
| Mixed waste generation would require onsite storage beyond RCRA-prescribed limits (SU). Storage of these wastes would exceed available capacities in the next 5–10 years (S). | Mixed waste generation would require onsite storage beyond RCRA-prescribed limits (SU). Storage of these wastes would exceed available capacities in the next 5–10 years (S). | Centralized LLNL and SNL, Livermore waste management facility could improve efficiencies (LS). | Eventual decrease in mixed waste generation to near zero (LS) | |
| The Mixed Waste Treatment Facility and the Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility would provide increased waste processing capabilities (B). | ||||
| Waste shipments would increase proportional to waste generation (LS). | Waste shipments would remain at current levels (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Initial increase in waste shipments; eventual decrease to zero (LS). | |
| LLNL Site 300 | ||||
| The site produces radioactive hazardous, mixed, and medical waste. Quantities in 1992 are projected to be: radioactive, 300,000 lb; hazardous, 41,000 gal and 37,000 lb plus 4500 lb of explosives waste; mixed, 2000 lb; and medical, 12 lb. The site's mixed waste is sent to the LLNL Livermore site for interim storage. | Quantities of waste are projected to increase by 9 percent, resulting in additional waste volumes of: radioactive, 27,000 lb of low-level waste; hazardous, 3700 gal and 3,300 lb plus 405 lb of high explosive waste; mixed, 180 lb; and medical, 1 lb (LS). | Quantities of waste generated would remain at current level. | Consistent with the proposed action | Eventual decrease in waste generation to near zero (B). |
| Cumulative impacts on national treatment and disposal capacity are beyond the control of UC. DOE is addressing the issue as part of a Programmatic EIS for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (SU). | Individual and cumulative quantities of waste generated will remain at current levels (LS). | Consistent with or less than the proposed action if a central waste processing facility is constructed for LLNL and SNL, Livermore (LS). | Initial increase in hazardous and radioactive wastes from decontamination and disposal (S); eventual cumulative contribution to near zero (B). | |
| Occupational Protection | ||||
| Radiological Exposures | ||||
| Radiation exposure of workers during 1990 (a representative year) at the LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 resulted in doses to about 300 people: | Exposure levels are anticipated to remain the same or decrease on individual and cumulative bases at both the LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 as planned operational and equipment improvements are made (B). | Exposures are anticipated to remain the same or decrease on individual and cumulative basis as operational and equipment improvements are made (LS). | Exposures consistent with the proposed action (B). | Continued exposure during cleanup, but less than DOE limits (LS); eventual cumulative reduction to near zero (B). |
| External gamma dose (mostly during plutonium operations): 28.5 person-rem (0.014 risk of a fatal cancer) | Would remain the same or would decrease on individual and cumulative bases (B). | Would remain the same or would decrease on individual and cumulative bases (B). | Exposures consistent with the proposed action (B). | Continued exposure during cleanup, but less than DOE limit (LS); eventual cumulative reduction to near zero (B). |
| Internal tritium dose: 0.5 person-rem (0.0002 risk of a fatal cancer) | Exposure levels would remain the same or would decrease on individual and cumulative bases (B). | Would remain the same or would decrease on individual and cumulative bases (LS). | Exposures consistent with the proposed action (B). | Continued exposure during cleanup, but less than DOE limit (LS); eventual cumulative reduction to near zero (B). |
| LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300—maximum individual doses: | ||||
| External gamma dose: 1.5 rem (0.0007 risk of a fatal cancer) | Exposure levels are anticipated to remain the same or decrease on individual and cumulative bases (B). | Would remain the same or would decrease on individual and cumulative bases (LS). | Exposures reduced from the proposed action (B). | Continued exposure during cleanup, but less than DOE limits (LS); eventual cumulative contribution reduced to near zero (B). |
| Internal tritium dose: 0.16 rem (0.00008 risk of a fatal cancer) | Exposure levels would remain the same or would decrease on individual and cumulative bases (B). | Would remain the same or would decrease on individual and cumulative bases (LS). | Exposures consistent with the proposed action (B). | Continued exposure during cleanup, but less than DOE limits (LS); eventual cumulative contribution reduced to near zero (B). |
| LLNL Site 300: Upgrade of FXR would add to potential for external exposure; this increase will be less than DOE guidelines (LS). | FXR would not be upgraded (LS). | Exposures consistent with the proposed action (LS). | Eventual individual exposures and cumulative contribution reduced to near zero (B). | |
| LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300 | ||||
| Some research and development work requires workers to be exposed to toxic materials and physical hazards in the workplace. | Several proposed projects would improve facilities for handling toxic substances, control physical hazards, and improve working conditions. This would reduce both individual and cumulative impacts (B). | Exposures expected to remain the same or decrease as facilities and operational procedures are improved (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Initial increase in exposure during decommissioning but within DOE guidelines (LS); eventual cumulative contribution reduced to near zero (B). |
| Site Contamination | ||||
| Soils and ground water | ||||
| Present activities are not increasing this contamination; instead, it is being cleaned up. | Possibility of both individual and cumulative impacts from exposure to contaminants or of contaminant release to air or surface or ground water; however, present and planned activities are designed to minimize contamination. Existing contamination being cleaned up under remediation program (LS). | Environmental restoration will continue until remediation is complete (LS). | Consistent with the proposed action (LS) | Environmental restoration would continue until remediation is complete (B). |
aIn accordance with CEQA and the UC CEQA
Handbook, four descriptive categories are used in this EIS/EIR to discuss and
analyze environmental impacts: less than significant (LS), significant (S),
significant and unavoidable (SU), and beneficial (B). These categories are used
consistently throughout the EIS/EIR. Under NEPA, however, the significance of
environmental impacts determines the need for the NEPA document; once that
decision has been made, specific impacts are not categorized according to level
of impact in an EIS.
bThe impacts associated with the EIR
proposed action of renewing the DOE and UC contract for UC's continued operation
and management of LLNL would be consistent with the impacts analyzed under the
EIS proposed action and alternatives that are summarized in this table.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
