Table 3-11
Comparison Summary of Proposed Action and
Alternatives
SNL, Livermore*
| Environmental Component Existing Conditions | Proposed Action | No Action | Modification of Operations | Shutdown and Decommissioning |
| Land Use | ||||
| Land uses at SNL, Livermore are compatible with surrounding areas and with the land use plans of local jurisdictions. | Additional development would occur (a 6 percent increase in square footage is projected) consistent with types of usage at existing facilities; potential exists for limiting access to a segment of East Avenue upon acquisition by DOE; no contribution to losses of agricultural land or open space from buildout of surrounding areas. | No change to existing land uses or amount of onsite development. | Consistent with proposed action plus potential changes to land uses and land use plans for property acquired east of SNL, Livermore (and LLNL Livermore site) for additional buffer zone. | No direct impacts on land uses; potential impacts of future land uses are beyond the scope of this EIS/EIR. |
| Socioeconomics | ||||
| Employment | ||||
| 1500 total employees and contract workers | Assumed to increase approximately 1 percent in 10 years (approximately 15 people); creation of additional employment opportunities adds to cumulative employment in region. | No increases over present levels. | Consistent with the proposed action | Eventual loss of most onsite jobs; employment reduced to maintenance staff in 5–10 years. |
| Population and housing | ||||
| Alameda County population is 1.3 million; population of four local cities is 164,000; present housing supplies are adequate. | Residential population in region is estimated to increase by about 30 people; demand for housing is estimated to increase by approximately 9 units. Planned and proposed projects onsite and in the area would contribute to a cumulative demand for housing in the region that may exceed supply in some areas. | No increases over present levels expected; no contribution to cumulative housing demand. | Consistent with the proposed action | A small decrease in the residential population level and the housing demand would result. |
| Economic factors | ||||
|
Annual payroll - $51.6 million Other local expenditures - $91.8 million |
Payroll is estimated to increase by $561,000; expenditures on goods and services are also expected to increase. | No increase from present levels. | Consistent with the proposed action | Substantial short-term loss of payroll and local procurement. |
| Community Services | ||||
| Fire protection and emergency services | ||||
| LLNL provides SNL, Livermore with fire protection support services. | Growth would increase demand for these services. Planned and proposed projects in the area would contribute to the cumulative demand but the proposed action would not contribute to this impact. | No impact to existing service levels; planned and proposed projects in the area would contribute to the cumulative demand in the area but the no action alternative would not contribute to this impact. | Consistent with the proposed action | Eventual decrease in site service to maintenance level; mutual aid agreements with local communities would cease. |
| Police and security services | ||||
| SNL, Livermore has its own services and has emergency response agreements with local communities. | Growth would increase demand for these services. Planned and proposed projects in the area would contribute to cumulative demand but the proposed action would not contribute to this impact. | No impact to existing service levels; planned and proposed projects in the area would contribute to the cumulative demand for service in the area but the no action alternative would not contribute to this impact. | Consistent with the proposed action | Eventual decrease in site services down to maintenance level; emergency response agreements with local communities would eventually cease. |
| Schools | ||||
| Some school districts in the region have existing capacity problems, including the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District, which serves approximately 205 students who have at least one parent employed at SNL, Livermore. | Approximately 4 additional students expected. Cumulative impact from regional development would be significant. | No change from present levels expected; planned and proposed projects in the area could contribute to cumulative demand for service in the region, but the no action alternative would not contribute to this impact. | Consistent with the proposed action | Eventual decrease in demand for school facilities to near zero; funding through the federal Impact Aid Program would be reduced accordingly. |
| Nonhazardous solid waste disposal | ||||
| Approximately 3600 cu yd of waste are collected onsite annually and disposed of at the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. | An estimated 6 percent increase in SNL, Livermore nonhazardous solid waste (approximately 216 cu yd annually), which can be handled at Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. Planned and proposed projects in the area would contribute to a cumulative demand for disposal services. | Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill handles present SNL, Livermore waste adequately. Planned and proposed projects in the area would contribute to a cumulative demand for service. | Consistent with the proposed action | Short-term increase in demand due to cleanup; eventual decrease to maintenance levels. |
| Prehistoric and Historic Resources | ||||
| No National Register of Historic Places listed or eligible properties are located at SNL, Livermore. |
No anticipated project-specific impacts to prehistoric or historic cultural resources. Too speculative to determine the full extent of cumulative impacts to prehistoric and historic cultural resources as part of this EIS/EIR. |
Consistent with the proposed action | Consistent with the proposed action | Consistent with the proposed action |
| Aesthetics and Scenic Resources | ||||
| Facilities are visible from various land uses and roadways in the vicinity. Designated scenic corridors in vicinity of the site 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; small incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to visual resources. | Minor short-term visual impacts during construction of no action projects; no contribution to cumulative visual effects on surrounding areas would occur. | Individual impacts consistent with the proposed action; visual impacts associated with possible land acquisition cannot be determined at this time; cumulative impacts consistent with the proposed action. | Potential short-term impacts during possible demolition of existing structures; evaluation of potential visual effects 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, all too far away to be affected. | No impact anticipated | No impact anticipated | No impact anticipated | No impact anticipated |
| Geologic hazards | ||||
| Area seismicity makes earthquake-resistant construction necessary. Little potential for landslides. | Because no proposed construction would occur near a fault, no impact anticipated. | No impact anticipated | Consistent with the proposed action | Earthquake-resistant shutdown and demolition procedures required. |
| Ecology | ||||
| Vegetation | ||||
| Vegetation in built-up areas highly altered by human activity. Relatively undeveloped introduced grasslands in security area and a remnant area of wooded riparian vegetation along Arroyo Seco. | No additional impacts anticipated, because proposed activities would occur in already built-up areas; no cumulative impacts anticipated. | No additional individual or cumulative impacts anticipated. | Consistent with the proposed action | Cleanup may produce further disturbance; cumulative impacts cannot be determined. |
| Wildlife | ||||
| Site supports wildlife species adapted to living in areas highly altered by human activity. Grassland and remnant riparian habitat support additional species. | No additional impacts anticipated because proposed activities would occur in already built-up areas; no cumulative impacts expected. | No additional individual or cumulative impacts anticipated. | Consistent with the proposed action | Cleanup may produce further disturbance; cumulative impacts cannot be determined. |
| Threatened and endangered species | ||||
| No threatened or endangered or other sensitive species observed at SNL, Livermore. | Because threatened, endangered, or other sensitive species not observed, no individual or cumulative impacts anticipated. | Because threatened, endangered, or other sensitive species not observed, no individual or cumulative impacts anticipated. | Consistent with the proposed action | Consistent with the no action alternative. |
| Wetlands | ||||
| 1.44 acres of wetlands along Arroyo Seco. | Because no proposed construction would occur near present wetlands, no individual or cumulative impacts anticipated. | Site activities would not affect present wetlands; no individual or cumulative impacts anticipated. | Consistent with the proposed action | Consistent with the no action alternative. |
| Air Quality | ||||
| Criteria pollutants | ||||
| Area is currently in compliance except for ozone and particulates, but is considered "moderate" nonattainment for ozone. Offsite monitoring combines emissions of both the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore. Output of criteria pollutants is 0.02 ton per day, of which 40 percent is volatile organic compounds, 52 percent NOx, 1 percent particulates, .03 percent SOx, and 7 percent CO. | Emissions may increase 6 percent at SNL, Livermore. Particulates and NOx, an ozone precursor, are less than 0.003 percent of area releases, but any release into a nonattainment area is a significant impact. | Although no increase in emissions, existing releases into a nonattainment area are a significant impact. | Consistent with the proposed action | Consistent with the no action alternative until cleanup operations cease, then near zero. |
| Toxic Air Contaminants | ||||
| Toxic air contaminant emissions at SNL, Livermore are at levels that do not require a risk assessment and are considered acceptable. | Toxic air contaminant emissions may increase 6 percent, but would remain within acceptable human health risk and hazard indices. | Consistent with existing levels. | Toxic air contaminant emissions would be reduced from current levels. | Toxic air contaminant emissions would be reduced to near zero. |
| Beryllium—None released from SNL, Livermore | ||||
| Radiation | ||||
| Radiation exposure to the public during 1990 primarily from tritium (14 percent through inhalation, the remainder through ingestion of locally grown foodstuffs): | These exposures are expected to decrease as tritium limits decrease. | Consistent with the proposed action. | Consistent with the proposed action | Consistent with the proposed action |
| Offsite exposures are calculated for the LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore combined. Collective dose to 6.3 million people: 31 person-rem (0.02 risk of a fatal cancer). Twenty percent of the tritium release was from SNL, Livermore. | Exposures would remain the same or would decrease. | Exposures would remain the same or would decrease. | Reduced from the proposed action. | Continued exposure during cleanup, but eventual reduction to near zero. |
| Maximally exposed individual dose on northeast fenceline: 0.25 mrem (1×10-7 risk of a fatal cancer). | Exposures would remain the same or would decrease. | Exposures would remain the same or would decrease. | Reduced from the proposed action. | Continued exposure during cleanup, but eventual reduction to near zero. |
| Decommissioning Tritium Research Laboratory | ||||
| Stack releases from the Tritium Research Laboratory account for all tritium releases from SNL, Livermore mentioned above. | Possible short-term increases in tritium releases during decontamination and decom-missioning of Building 968. | Consistent with the proposed action. | Consistent with the proposed action. | Consistent with the proposed action. |
| Water | ||||
| Surface water | ||||
| No perennial streams or bodies of water present onsite. For wetlands, see discussion in Ecology section. Virtually no floodplains of concern exist onsite. | No impact anticipated | No impact anticipated | No impact anticipated | No impact anticipated |
| Ground water | ||||
| Underlies LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore, flowing generally westward. Contamination of this water is discussed below in Site Contamination section. | Ground water flows would not be affected; no impact anticipated. | No impact anticipated | No impact anticipated | No impact anticipated |
| Noise | ||||
| Noise sources include vehicular traffic; heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment; construction activities; and a pistol and rifle firing range. Currently, noise standards are exceeded. | Short-term increase in noise levels during construction. Long-term increase in roadway noise levels due to increased traffic volumes (up to 0.7 dBA increase for LLNL Livermore site and SNL, Livermore combined); increase in cumulative roadway noise levels (up to 4.7 dBA increase) due to increase in regional traffic volumes. | Short-term increase in noise levels anticipated during construction. | Consistent with the proposed action | Although short-term increase in noise levels associated with demolition is anticipated, long-term reduction in roadway noise levels could follow. |
| Traffic | ||||
| SNL, Livermore currently generates approximately 3100 vehicle trips per day. Two intersections near the Laboratory are congested during peak hours beyond the acceptable level of service. | SNL, Livermore traffic is projected to increase by 30 vehicles for a total of 3130 vehicle trips per day. Increased employee traffic would result in increased traffic congestion. | Consistent with the existing conditions. | Consistent with the proposed action | Short-term increase in traffic from cleanup activities; long-term reduction in traffic congestion. |
| Increased SNL, Livermore traffic would contribute to cumulative traffic impacts associated with buildout of surrounding lands. | Buildout of surrounding lands would increase congestion; however, SNL, Livermore would not contribute to this cumulative traffic congestion. | Cumulative impacts consistent with the proposed action. | Beneficial impact anticipated on cumulative traffic congestion in vicinity. | |
| Utilities and Energy | ||||
| Water | ||||
| Primary water source is Hetch Hetchy aqueduct. Usage was approximately 56 million gal per year in 1990. The projected 1992 usage will be 58 million gal. | An assumed 6 percent growth of the Laboratory
could result in increased water use of approximately 61.5 million gal per year.
Given the continuing drought, this use is significant.
Cumulative development of SNL, Livermore, LLNL, and nearby industry will further impact this use. |
No increase from existing levels anticipated. | Consistent with the proposed action | Demand during cleanup unknown; eventual decrease to maintenance level. |
| Electricity | ||||
| Power is purchased from PG&E and the Western Area Power Administration. Power use is approximately 38.7 million kWh per year and has been slowly increasing. The projected 1992 usage will be 40.1 kWh. | An assumed 6 percent increase proportional to program growth could add approximately 2.4 million kWh per year. | No increase from existing levels anticipated. | Consistent with the proposed action | Demand during cleanup unknown; eventual decrease to maintenance level. |
| Fuel | ||||
| Annual gasoline, diesel, liquid propane gas, and natural gas consumption rates are projected to amount to a total of 16,600 gal in 1992. | Fuel use is assumed to increase 6 percent; amounting to 17,600 gal/yr. | Consumption continues at existing rates. | Consistent with the proposed action | Demand during cleanup unknown; eventual decrease to maintenance level. |
| Sewage discharges | ||||
| Combined with LLNL Livermore site sewage and disposed of via City of Livermore sewer system. SNL, Livermore discharges estimated to be 28 million gal/yr. | An assumed increase of 6 percent could add 1.6 million gal per year. | Continued discharge at existing levels. | Consistent with the proposed action | Demand during cleanup unknown; eventual decrease to maintenance level. |
| Materials and Waste Management | ||||
| Materials Management | ||||
| Controlled materials include explosives,
radioactive materials, special nuclear materials, classified substances and
parts, and precious metals.
About 3420 gal, 6320 lb, and 197,000 cu ft of various chemicals are stored onsite. The existing administrative limit for tritium is 50 g (500,000 Ci). |
Quantities of chemicals may increase by as much as 6 percent; radionuclide limits will not increase; those for tritium will decrease to zero when the Tritium Research Laboratory is decommissioned. | Quantities of chemicals would remain at present levels; radionuclide limits will not increase; those for tritium will decrease to zero when the Tritium Research Laboratory is decommissioned. | Consistent with the proposed action | Eventual decrease to zero. |
| Waste Management | ||||
| The site produces radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and medical waste. Quantities in 1992 are projected to be: radioactive, 7670 gal and 8860 lb of low-level waste; hazardous, 3947 gal and 6320 lb; mixed, 250 lb of liquids and 73 lb of solids; and medical, 124 lb. | Quantities of waste may increase by as much as 6 percent, resulting in additional waste volumes of: radioactive, 460 gal and 540 lb of low-level waste; hazardous, 240 gal and 380 lb; mixed, 15 lb of liquids and 4 lb of solids; and medical, 7lb. | Quantities of waste generated would remain at existing levels. | Consistent with the proposed action | Initial increase in hazardous, radioactive, and mixed waste generation from decommissioning activities; eventual decrease to near zero. |
| Mixed waste generation would require onsite storage beyond RCRA-prescribed limits. | Mixed waste generation would require onsite storage beyond RCRA-prescribed limits. | Consistent with the proposed action | Eventual decrease in waste generation to near zero. | |
| Waste shipments would increase proportional to waste generation. | No increases anticipated from present quantities. | Consistent with the proposed action | Eventual decrease to near zero. | |
| DOE is addressing this cumulative impact as part of a Programmatic EIS for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management. | No cumulative increase anticipated from present quantities. | Consistent with the proposed action | Eventual decrease to near zero. | |
| Decommissioning Tritium Research Laboratory | ||||
| In 1990, the Tritium Research Laboratory
generated 7550 lb of tritium contaminated low-level and 237.5 lb of mixed
wastes.
SNL, Livemore typically ships one low-level waste shipment per year. |
During the 3-year period of decontamination and
decom-missioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory, 100,000 lb of low level and
310 gal of mixed waste may be generated.
Decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory may add 15 to 20 shipments from SNL, Livermore during the 3 years of this project |
Consistent with the proposed action.
Consistent with the proposed action. |
Consistent with the proposed action.
Consistent with the proposed action. |
Consistent with the proposed action.
Would be included in the total shipments associated with shutdown and decommissioning. |
| Occupational Protection | ||||
| Radiation | ||||
| Radiation exposure of workers during 1990 (a representative year) is summarized below. | ||||
| Collective doses to about 200 people: | ||||
| External gamma dose: 2.5 person-rem
(0.001 risk of a fatal cancer) |
Exposures would remain the same or would decrease. | Exposures would remain the same or would decrease. | Exposures would remain the same or would decrease. | Continued exposure during cleanup, but less than DOE limits, with eventual reduction to near zero. |
| Internal tritium dose: 1.0 person-rem
(0.0005 risk of a fatal cancer) |
Exposures would remain the same or would decrease. | Exposures would remain the same or would decrease. | Exposures would be consistent with the proposed action. | Continued exposure during cleanup, but less than DOE limits, with eventual reduction to near zero. |
| Maximum individual dose: | ||||
| External gamma dose: 0.24 rem
(0.0001 risk of a fatal cancer) |
Exposures would remain the same or would decrease. | Exposures would remain the same or would decrease. | Exposures would be consistent with the proposed action. | Continued exposure during cleanup, but less than DOE limits, with eventual reduction to near zero. |
| Internal tritium dose: 0.2 rem
(0.0001 risk of a fatal cancer) |
Exposures would remain the same or would decrease. | Exposures would remain the same or would decrease. | Exposures would be consistent with the proposed action. | Continued exposure during cleanup, but less than DOE limits, with eventual reduction to near zero. |
| Decommissioning Tritium Research Laboratory | ||||
| The internal radiation doses to workers summarized above also apply to the Tritium Research Laboratory. | Decommissioning of the Tritium Research Laboratory may increase radiation exposure to decontamination workers. | Consistent with the proposed action. | Consistent with the proposed action. | Consistent with the proposed action. |
| Toxic Substances and Physical Hazards | ||||
| Toxic exposure | ||||
| Site workers: 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. | Exposures anticipated to remain the same or decrease as facilities and operational procedures are improved. | Consistent with the proposed action | Consistent with the no action alternative, with eventual reduction to near zero. |
| Site Contamination | ||||
| Soils and ground water | ||||
| Existing activities are not increasing site contamination, but rather are cleaning it up. | Present and planned activities are designed to minimize further contamination. Existing contamination being cleaned up under the environmental restoration program. | Environmental restoration activities will continue. | Consistent with the proposed action | Consistent with present conditions. |
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
