3.5 Emerging Technologies

DOE is planning to maintain the weapons stockpile using technologies that are in many cases more cost effective with less environmental impact than those used in the past. In addition to these proven baseline technologies planned for the downsized weapons complex, there are newer technologies under consideration that have the potential to offer even greater cost and environmental advantages. However, these technologies have not matured sufficiently to be included with confidence within the current baseline design. In most cases, new technologies that reduce waste and scrap generation and raw material usage concurrently reduce processing steps and operating costs. However, installing new technology requires capital construction and in nuclear facilities may require substantial additional cost to decontaminate and remove old equipment. These construction and decontamination operations also generate waste. Nevertheless, it is foreseeable that the future Complex could include some of these emerging technologies. This section discusses the major emerging technologies under consideration and their potential to further reduce future environmental impacts.

In the design of the Complex, there is a common waste management approach that emphasizes four areas of concern: the reduction of environmental impacts by avoiding environmentally offensive substances; process improvements that minimize waste generation; recycling, in order to minimize waste and raw material use; and the treatment of generated wastes. For some of the major processes, the following sections identify the significant benefits from emerging technologies that could reduce plant effluent, emissions, wastes, worker exposures, and operating cost.

3.5.1 Plutonium Fabrication and Processing

The plutonium facility includes a fabrication area where the plutonium is shaped into usable geometric shapes called pits and a processing area where the supporting chemical operations are performed. Plutonium from dismantled weapons may also be recovered. An amount of plutonium sufficient for carrying out fabrication and processing operations would be stored at the facility. The facility would be supported by activities such as analytical laboratories and waste management operations.

The emerging technologies for plutonium fabrication and processing are directed at minimizing waste at the source, reducing the amount of emissions, reducing the exposure of personnel to radiation, reducing the operational cost of the facility, improving recovery efficiencies, and improving safety. The following specific emerging technologies could affect the characteristics of the Plutonium Fabrication and Processing Facility and further reduce its environmental impact on the public and the safety and health of its workers.

For fabrication of plutonium parts, a near-net shape casting process is part of the baseline design. The casting undergoes additional machining, cleaning, and certification steps. This fabrication process is vastly superior to fabrication processes used in the past because the amount of scrap, waste, residue, and worker radiation dose are greatly reduced. Near-net shape casting technology development is continuing toward a goal of producing precision castings that require no additional machining and associated handling and material recycling. Even if the final goal is not met, any additional progress toward the goal allows for reduced machining, which results in reduced scrap, waste, residue, and worker radiation exposure.

An important fabrication step is a density measurement of the plutonium part. The baseline design measurement process requires that the part be immersed in a brominated hydrocarbon fluid. Hazardous residue is left in the fluid and from the cleaning step that follows. An emerging technology would use a nonreactive gas as the density measurement medium. If this technology is able to provide the required precision, then no residue would be left from the measurement and no follow-up cleaning step would be required.

3.5.2 Uranium Fabrication and Processing

The production of nuclear weapons requires parts fabrication and supporting chemical operations for enriched uranium, depleted uranium, and depleted uranium alloys. Uranium from dismantled weapons may also be processed. An amount of uranium in its various forms would be stored at the facility sufficient for carrying out uranium fabrication and processing operations. The facility would be supported by activities such as analytical laboratories and waste management operations.

The emerging technologies for uranium fabrication and processing are directed at minimizing waste at the source, reducing the amount of emissions, reducing the operational cost of the facility, improving recovery efficiencies, improving safety, and reducing the exposure of personnel to radiation. Radiation exposure is not as big an issue for uranium operations as for plutonium operations, but there will always be an operational goal to reduce exposures consistent with an as-low-as-reasonably-achievable philosophy. The following specific emerging technologies could affect the characteristics of the Uranium Fabrication and Processing Facility and further reduce its environmental impact on the public and the impact to the safety and health of its workers.

The baseline technology for enriched uranium parts fabrication largely continues to rely on the same technologies that have been in use for many years. Some enriched uranium parts are produced by a wrought process that includes casting, rolling, forming, and machining. This process produces a substantial amount of scrap that must be recycled. Other parts are produced directly from a casting to a near-net shape, but these require a substantial amount of final machining. Advances in technology should improve the near-net shape casting process so that final machining is greatly reduced. The improved near-net shape casting process has fewer steps and generates far less scrap that must be recycled. The full implementation of this process would reduce cost, worker radiation exposure, and waste and residue production.

Baseline technology for depleted uranium and uranium alloy parts involves casting, rolling, forming, and machining operations in which the finished part is much smaller than the starting material. An emerging technology is spin forming of some or all of these parts. Although conceptually simple, it is very difficult to spin form to the proper specifications because of the metallurgical properties of uranium. After spin forming, a machining step would still be required, but the final part would have a substantial portion of the metal contained in the starting blank. Spin forming has far fewer process steps than the current process and generates far less scrap that must be processed. The full implementation of this process would reduce cost, worker radiation exposure, and waste and residue.

All uranium and uranium alloy products, whether using the baseline technology or emerging technologies, require a casting step. Currently, the crucibles and molds for casting are made of graphite. In some cases, the graphite is coated with rare earth oxides to extend its life and to reduce carbon contamination of the parts. Graphite molds and crucibles are expensive, have a short life even when coated, and become contaminated with uranium. There is ongoing development to improve coatings, to extend the life of molds and crucibles, and to reduce carbon contamination of parts and uranium contamination of the molds and crucibles. There is also development in alternative materials for molds and crucibles. If improved coating or metal molds and crucibles prove to be feasible, their use in a production environment could reduce cost, and reduce or eliminate substantial quantities of contaminated graphite that must be processed.

Advanced uranium chemical processing technologies are currently under development. These technologies allow high-efficiency recovery and waste and residue processing with reduced worker and environmental radiation exposure. The chemicals used for processing, and the resulting emissions and effluents, are largely benign. These emerging processing technologies have been successfully tested in the laboratory, but have not been scaled up to the pilot plant level. This technology, if successful, could result in reductions in plant emissions and effluents as well as improvements in worker and public health and safety.

3.5.3 Lithium Hydride Fabrication and Processing

The basic steps of producing lithium hydride parts are hydriding lithium metal, grinding hydrided lithium into powder, pressing the powder into blanks, and machining the blanks into the final part. Near-net shape pressing technology has the potential to produce blanks that require less machining and therefore generate less material that must be recycled or stored. This process, if successful, could reduce the cost of operations. Environmental and waste impacts from current operations are very small.

Scrap and parts from old weapons are converted to a hydroxide, then to lithium chloride. The lithium chloride is converted to lithium metal in an electrolytic cell. This process poses hazards for workers and is an environmental emission hazard. The next step is to hydride the metal so it can serve as the feed material for the fabrication process. An emerging technology proven on a laboratory scale uses a bi-polar electrolytic cell to convert lithium hydroxide directly to lithium metal. This avoids the lithium chloride step and its associated emission and worker safety hazards.

3.5.4 High Explosives

The HE processes formulate, press, machine, and inspect main charges required for nuclear weapons and related research, development, and testing programs. Also included are explosive material recycling and disposition of explosives from disassembled weapons. Currently, excess explosive materials are disposed of by open burning or detonation. Alternative disposal technologies are being reviewed or developed for possible application. These alternative technologies include biodegradation, base hydrolysis, and reaction in a molten salt solution. Each of these technologies, if proved feasible, would be capable of reducing explosive materials to environmentally benign gases and chemicals.

3.6 Next Generation Stockpile Management Facilities

Stockpile management facilities have been sized in this analysis based on the planned and expected workload to support a START II-sized nuclear weapons stockpile. In addition, stockpile sizes larger and smaller than the START II protocol stockpile have been analyzed to assess the sensitivity of the analysis and the ultimate decision to pursue alternative stockpile sizes.

For all parts of nuclear weapons, except the plutonium pits, an existing large manufacturing capacity exists. Alternatives are considered for downsizing this large capacity at the manufacturing site or transferring the mission to a laboratory or test site where a smaller development and test capability could be expanded to accommodate the production mission. The pit manufacturing capability and capacity was located at the DOE Rocky Flats Plant, which is no longer available for this mission. Therefore, only alternatives that build on an R&D plutonium infrastructure or, in the case of SRS, build on a plutonium infrastructure established for a different purpose, are considered in this analysis.

In sizing pit fabrication for the foreseeable future, consideration was given to establishing a larger fabrication capacity in line with the capacity planned for other portions of the Complex. However, after review of historical pit surveillance data, larger capacity was rejected because of the expected small demand for the fabrication of new replacement pits for the foreseeable future covered in this PEIS.

Construction and operation of a larger pit production capacity at this time would be expensive and would not have sufficient workload requirements for the foreseeable future to justify its maintenance and operation. DOE believes that significant advances are possible in facility design, construction, and operation which would significantly affect new plutonium facility size, cost, and environmental impact. DOE further believes that development and demonstration work should be performed on alternative facility concepts prior to making large financial and programmatic commitments, particularly in light of the expected small near-term requirement for pit production. DOE will perform development and demonstration work at its operating plutonium facilities over the next 5 years to study alternative modular facility concepts that could be utilized in the future in the construction of a larger fabrication capacity. Should a larger pit production capacity be required in the future, appropriate environmental and siting analyses would be performed at that time.

3.7 Comparison of Alternatives

To aid the reader in understanding the differences in environmental impacts among the various PEIS alternatives, this section presents comparisons of the alternatives, concentrating on the major resources assessed in this PEIS. In section 3.7.1, alternatives for each stockpile management mission (e.g., A/D, pit fabrication, secondary and case fabrication, nonnuclear fabrication, and HE fabrication) are compared with one another and the No Action alternative. Tables 3.7.1-1 through 3.7.1-4 contain the quantitative data to support these comparisons. Section 3.7.1 also contains a top-level comparison of the entire stockpile management program. That comparison assesses the major differences in environmental impacts between a Complex that is downsized/rightsized in-place (the preferred alternative) and a Complex that is consolidated to the maximum extent practicable.

In section 3.7.2, the three proposed stockpile stewardship facilities are compared with the No Action alternative. The quantitative data to support the comparisons for the proposed stockpile stewardship facilities are in the project-specific analyses found in appendixes I, J, and K.

3.7.1 Stockpile Management

To aid the reader in understanding the differences in environmental impacts among the various PEIS alternatives, this section presents comparisons of the alternatives, concentrating on the major resources assessed in this PEIS.

Assembly/Disassembly. In addition to the No Action alternative, two alternatives are being considered that would meet the needs of the Program: (1) downsizing the existing A/D facilities at Pantex and (2) transferring the A/D mission to NTS by expanding the Device Assembly Facility. Under No Action, the A/D mission would remain at Pantex. No downsizing or modification of facilities would occur, and there would be no construction impacts. Downsizing existing facilities at Pantex would involve internal modifications to the existing facility. Transferring the A/D mission to NTS would entail upgrading and expanding the Device Assembly Facility.

Socioeconomic Impacts. Because of the reduced workload associated with completing the weapon dismantlement backlog, significant employment reductions will occur at Pantex for all alternatives. There would be a decrease from the current total of 3,437 workers to about 1,644 workers. Of the current workforce, 3,002 are associated with A/D operations. Under No Action only 915 A/D workers would be required. The downsized Pantex facility would be optimally configured for the reduced future workload, and would operate more efficiently than the No Action Pantex facility. The downsized Pantex facility would require 800 workers for single-shift operation. To perform operations in the downsized Pantex facility in a three-shift mode, 1,266 workers would be required.

If the A/D mission were transferred to NTS, 1,093 direct jobs (based on three-shift operation) would be created at that site, along with 1,160 indirect jobs. The 2,253 total new jobs would cause the regional economic area unemployment rate to decrease by approximately 0.1 percent. Housing/rental vacancies and public finance expenditures/revenues would change by less than 1 percent. If the A/D mission were transferred to NTS, there would be socioeconomic impacts associated with phasing out the A/D mission at Pantex. The phaseout would result in 1,644 direct jobs lost at the Pantex site, and another 1,905 indirect jobs would be lost in the regional economic area. The loss of 3,549 total jobs would cause the regional economic area unemployment rate to increase from 4.8 to 6.2 percent. Housing/rental vacancies and public finance expenditures/revenues would change by less than 1 percent.

Socioeconomic impacts at NTS associated with a peak construction workforce of 662 would produce small positive economic benefits. The 662 direct workers would also generate 622 indirect jobs. The 1,284 total new jobs during peak construction would cause no change in the regional economic area unemployment rate. Housing rental vacancies and public finance expenditures/revenues would change by less than 1 percent.

Resource Impacts. Due to the reduced workload expected in the future at Pantex, impacts from operations are expected to be less than current impacts. Air quality would remain within regulatory limits, and water requirements would be met without increased aquifer drawdowns. In addition, downsizing existing facilities at Pantex would involve internal modifications to the existing facility. No land would be disturbed.

Transferring the A/D mission to NTS would entail upgrading and expanding the Device Assembly Facility, with associated increases in land disturbance. An estimated 7.5 ha (18.5 acres) of additional land would be disturbed, which is less than 1 percent of the land available at NTS for development. This land disturbance would increase the potential to impact cultural and biotic resources; however, the impact to cultural resources is not expected to be significant because the proposed A/D site has been previously disturbed during construction activities associated with the Device Assembly Facility. Impacts to biotic resources are expected to be minor; however, the presence of the desert tortoise at NTS would require a site survey to determine any impacts. With mitigation measures already in place at NTS to minimize impacts to the Federal-listed desert tortoise, significant impacts due to the proposed project are not expected.

Because both alternatives would utilize similar facilities, procedures, resources, and numbers of workers during operation, both alternatives would produce similar operational environmental impacts for most resource areas. Impacts to air quality were modeled, and results indicate minimal impacts for both alternatives. Water use for the NTS alternative is projected to be less than for the Pantex alternative because continued operations at Pantex would rely on existing, older, site-wide infrastructure. At both sites, water requirements could be adequately met without substantial aquifer drawdown. At Pantex, downsizing would reduce groundwater withdrawals by 21 percent compared to No Action. At NTS, water requirements to support the A/D mission would be approximately 4 percent more than projected usage. Groundwater withdrawals at NTS would be less than the recharge rates for the aquifer.

Radiation and Waste Management Impacts. The average radiological dose to workers at Pantex would not be expected to change, although the total worker dose would change due to the reduced number of workers associated with a reduction in workload. Worker exposure to radiation is expected to be about equal (approximately 10 mrem/year) for both alternatives and well within regulatory limits. Because of the small difference in the workforce for this mission at the two sites, this would result in a total worker dose of 3.0 person-rem/year at Pantex and 2.6 person-rem/year at NTS. The added risk to the workforce due to these levels of radiation exposure is extremely small.

Radiation exposure to the public from normal operation would be well within regulatory limits at both sites. At Pantex, the incremental dose to the population within 80 km (50 mi) would be 4.0x10-4 person-rem/year. At NTS, the incremental dose to the public within 80 km (50 mi) resulting from operation of the A/D Facility would be 3.1x10-6 person-rem/year. The added risk to the public due to these levels of radiation exposure is extremely small.

Both sites have adequate waste management facilities to treat, store, and/or dispose of wastes from the A/D mission, although LLW at Pantex would continue to be shipped offsite to NTS. The impacts of transporting LLW are similar to the impacts of transporting nonradiological materials, which are small. Transferring the A/D mission to NTS would eliminate the need to ship LLW from Pantex to NTS. Transferring the A/D mission to NTS by expanding the Device Assembly Facility would also increase the overall amount of eventual D&D activities and wastes.

Accident Impacts. Potential impacts from accidents would not be expected to change significantly due to reduced workload. Accident impacts were determined using computer modeling. For the composite accident, less than one fatal cancer would be expected for the surrounding 80-km (50-mi) population at either Pantex or NTS. Based on a weighted averaging of the postulated accidents, at Pantex there would be a statistical risk that one fatal cancer to a member of the public would result approximately every 43,000 years from accidents. At NTS, there would be a statistical risk that one fatal cancer to a member of the public would result approximately every 500,000 years from accidents.

Other. The A/D mission also includes an option to store strategic reserves of plutonium and/or uranium. At Pantex, which presently stores both strategic reserves and surplus quantities of plutonium, no additional facilities would be needed, and no significant new environmental impacts or risks would result. Storing the strategic reserve would not produce any additional air emissions, require any additional water withdrawals, generate any wastes, or require additional workers. At NTS, however, the Device Assembly Facility would be further expanded to accomplish the strategic reserve storage. The additional construction would have smaller impacts (less than 10 percent) than the construction associated with the Device Assembly Facility upgrade for the A/D mission. Radiation exposure to the public in the event of an accident would be significantly less than for the A/D mission for either alternative.

Pit Fabrication. For pit fabrication, a capability that no longer exists due to the closure of the Rocky Flats Plant, two alternatives are being considered that would reestablish this mission and meet the needs of the Program: (1) upgrading the existing plutonium R&D fabrication capability at LANL and (2) upgrading existing H-Area and F-Canyon facilities at SRS. Both alternatives involve relatively minor (though costly) upgrades to existing facilities. Under the No Action alternative, DOE would not reestablish this mission, but would rely on the existing R&D capabilities at LANL and LLNL.

Socioeconomic Impacts. During operation, both alternatives would have small positive socioeconomic impacts. Based on the socioeconomic modeling, impacts would be higher at SRS because of the indirect jobs that would be created due to this mission. Modeling results indicate no indirect jobs for this mission at LANL. At SRS, up to 813 direct jobs would be created for surge operations, along with 1,594 indirect jobs. These 2,407 total new jobs would cause the regional economic area unemployment rate to decrease from 6.7 to 6.0 percent. Housing/rental vacancies and public finance expenditures/revenues would change by less than 1 percent. At LANL, up to 260 new direct jobs would be created for surge operations, but no indirect jobs would be created. The 260 total new jobs would cause the regional economic area unemployment rate to decrease from 6.2 to 6.0 percent. Housing/rental vacancies and public finance expenditures/revenues would change by less than 1 percent. Because the SRS alternative has less of an infrastructure in place for plutonium fabrication, the SRS alternative would require more direct workers (288 versus 138) during construction. At both sites, however, the socioeconomic impacts during construction would not cause any socioeconomic indicator to change by more than 1 percent.

Resource Impacts. Construction activities would involve internal modifications to existing facilities, no land would be disturbed, and thus, no impacts to cultural and biotic resources would result. Because both alternatives would utilize similar facilities, procedures, resources, and numbers of workers during operation, both alternatives would result in similar operational environmental impacts for most resource areas. Impacts to air quality were modeled, and results indicate minimal impacts to air quality for both alternatives. Water requirements at SRS would be provided from surface water, which is plentiful, and no adverse impacts would be expected. At LANL, groundwater would be used. Water requirements for this mission, which would be less than 1 percent of projected No Action uses, could be adequately met without exceeding the groundwater allotment at LANL.

Radiation and Waste Management Impacts. Worker exposure to radiation is expected to be about equal for both alternatives and well within regulatory limits. At either SRS or LANL, the average workforce dose from this mission would be approximately 380 mrem/year. Because of a difference in workforce for this mission at the two sites, this would result in a total worker dose of 156 person-rem/year at SRS and 55 person-rem/year at LANL. Statistically, this would equate to one fatal cancer every 16 years at SRS, and every 45 years at LANL, from operation of the Pit Fabrication Facility. Radiation exposure to the public from normal operation would be well within regulatory limits at both sites. At SRS and LANL, the incremental dose to the public within 80 km (50 mi) would be 5.9x10-4 person-rem/year and 8.6x10-5 person-rem/year, respectively. The added risk to the public due to these levels of radiation exposure is extremely small. Both site alternatives have adequate existing waste management facilities to treat, store, and/or dispose of wastes that would be generated by this mission.

Accident Impacts. Potential impacts from accidents were determined using computer modeling. For the composite accident, less than one fatal cancer would be expected for the surrounding 80-km (50-mi) population at both SRS and LANL. Based on a weighted averaging of the postulated accidents, at SRS there would be a statistical risk that one fatal cancer to a member of the public would result approximately every 360,000 years from accidents. At LANL, there would be a statistical risk that one fatal cancer to a member of the public would result approximately every 160,000 years from accidents.

Secondary and Case Fabrication. In addition to the No Action alternative, three alternatives being considered would meet the needs of the Program: (1) downsizing facilities that presently perform this mission at ORR, (2) transferring the secondary and case fabrication mission to LANL by upgrading the existing R&D secondary and case fabrication capabilities of LANL, and (3) transferring the secondary and case fabrication mission to LLNL by upgrading the existing R&D secondary and case fabrication capabilities of LLNL. Under No Action, the secondary and case fabrication mission would remain at Y-12 at ORR, and no downsizing or modification of facilities would occur.

Socioeconomic Impacts. Under No Action, there would be a decrease in the number of workers at Y-12 from the current total of 5,152 workers to 4,721 workers. Of the 5,152 workers, 3,126 are currently associated with the core stockpile management mission. Under No Action, only 2,741 core stockpile management workers would be required. The downsized Y-12 would be optimally configured for the reduced future workload, operate more efficiently, and require 784 workers for single-shift operation, a reduction of 1,957 workers. To perform operations in the downsized Y-12 in a three-shift mode, 1,376 core stockpile management workers would be required, a reduction of 1,365 workers. A reduction of 1,365 direct jobs represents approximately 9 percent of the projected No Action workforce at the entire ORR site, and less than 1 percent of the regional economic area. Another 3,490 indirect jobs would also be lost.

Mitigating the workforce reductions would be the fact that downsizing would require 1,152 new jobs associated with landlord activities in preparation for D&D activities. Another 1,600 indirect jobs would be created by these D&D jobs. The net effect for the three-shift mode of operation would be a loss of a total of 213 direct jobs at Y-12, which would represent less than 1 percent of the projected No Action workforce at ORR.

Transferring the secondary and case fabrication mission to either LANL or LLNL would have small positive socioeconomic impacts at those sites, and negative socioeconomic impacts at ORR due to the phaseout of this mission. At LANL, 321 direct jobs (based on three-shift operation) would be created, but no indirect jobs would be created for this industry. The 321 new jobs would cause the regional economic area unemployment rate to decrease from 6.2 to 6.0 percent. Housing/rental vacancies and public finance expenditures/revenues would change by less than 1 percent. At LLNL, 290 new direct jobs (based on three-shift operation) would be created, along with 722 indirect jobs. The 1,012 new jobs would cause the regional economic area unemployment rate to decrease by less than 1 percent. Housing/rental vacancies and public finance expenditures/revenues would change by less than 1 percent.

Transferring the secondary and case fabrication mission from ORR to either LANL or LLNL would result in the loss of 3,336 direct jobs projected for this mission under No Action at Y-12, and the closure and D&D of the Y-12 facilities previously involved in this mission. Another 10,134 indirect jobs could also be lost. It is expected that 1,385 new jobs would be created by a direct transfer of responsibilities from DP to EM. Additionally, because the D&D of facilities at ORR would be a relatively long-term process, any initial negative socioeconomic impacts resulting from the transfer of the secondary and case fabrication mission to LANL or LLNL would be minimized by the additional workforce associated with D&D activities at ORR. These 1,385 new D&D jobs would also create 1,937 new indirect jobs. The net effect would be a loss of a total of 13,470 total jobs (direct plus indirect) in the ORR regional economic area. This would cause the regional economic area unemployment rate to increase from 4.9 to 7.4 percent. Housing/rental vacancies and public finance expenditures/revenues would change by less than 1 percent.

During construction activities, socioeconomic impacts would result, but would be small. The number of peak workers would be 14 at ORR, 55 at LANL, and 130 at LLNL, which has the least extensive existing infrastructure for secondary and case fabrication. At all three sites, the socioeconomic impacts during construction would not cause any socioeconomic indicator to change by more than 1 percent.

Resource Impacts. Impacts from continued operation at Y-12 are expected to be similar to current impacts. Air quality would remain within regulatory limits and water requirements would be adequately met by surface water withdrawals. For the three "action" alternatives, no previously undisturbed land would be disturbed, and thus, no impacts to biotic resources would result. Minimal impacts to cultural resources may result from building modifications to facilities eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Because each of the alternatives would utilize similar facilities, procedures, resources, and numbers of workers during operation, each of the alternatives would produce similar operational environmental impacts for most resource areas. Impacts to air quality were modeled for each alternative and results indicate minimal impacts to air quality for each of the alternatives. Water requirements at ORR would be met from surface water, which is plentiful, and no adverse impacts would be expected. At LANL, groundwater would be used. Groundwater withdrawals would increase by less than 1 percent over projected No Action water requirements, and LANL's groundwater allotment would not be exceeded. At LLNL, public water supply would be used, and usage would be approximately 20-percent higher than projected No Action water requirements. No adverse impacts to water resources are expected.

Radiation and Waste Management Impacts. Radiation worker exposure to radiation is expected to be about equal for all three alternatives and well within regulatory limits. At each of the three sites, the average workforce dose from this mission would be approximately 2.2 mrem/year. Because of differences in projected workforces, this would result in a total worker dose of 0.38 person-rem/year at ORR, 0.33 person-rem/year at LANL, and 0.55 person-rem/year at LLNL. The added risk to the workforce due to these levels of radiation exposure is extremely small. Radiation exposure to the public from normal operation would be well within regulatory limits at these sites. At ORR, the incremental dose to the population within 80 km (50 mi) would be 0.6 person rem/year. The probability of a member of the public dying from cancer would be 3x10-4/year. At LANL, the incremental dose to the population within 80 km (50 mi) would be 0.5 person-rem/year. The probability of a member of the public dying from cancer would be 2.5x10-4/year. At LLNL, the incremental dose to the population within 80 km (50 mi) would be 0.84 person-rem/year. The probability of a member of the public dying from cancer would be 4.2x10-4/year. The added risk to the public due to these levels of radiation exposure is extremely small. All three site alternatives have adequate existing waste management facilities to treat, store, and/or dispose of wastes that would be generated by this mission.

Accident Impacts. Potential impacts from accidents were determined using computer modeling. For all postulated accidents, less than one fatal cancer would be expected for the surrounding 80-km (50-mi) population at each of the sites. Based on a weighted averaging of the postulated accidents, at ORR and LANL there would be a statistical risk that one fatal cancer to a member of the public would result approximately every 830,000 years from accidents. At LLNL, there would be a statistical risk that one fatal cancer to a member of the public would result approximately every 260,000 years from accidents.

Other. If the secondary and case fabrication mission were transferred from ORR, storage of the strategic reserves of HEU would be transferred to the A/D Facility (or a consolidated storage facility being assessed in the Storage and Disposition PEIS). The potential impacts associated with the one-time transfer of the strategic reserves of HEU to the A/D Facility are expected to be minor, even in the event of an accident, due to the robust shipping containers.

High Explosives Fabrication. In addition to the No Action alternative, three alternatives are being considered that would meet the needs of the Program: (1) downsizing facilities that presently perform this mission at Pantex, (2) transferring the HE fabrication mission to LANL by upgrading the existing R&D HE fabrication capabilities of LANL, and/or (3) transferring the HE fabrication mission to LLNL by upgrading the existing R&D HE fabrication capabilities of LLNL. Transferring the HE fabrication from Pantex to LANL and/or LLNL would result in the closure and D&D of Pantex facilities previously involved in this activity. Under No Action, the HE fabrication mission would remain at Pantex. No downsizing or modification of facilities would occur.

Socioeconomic Impacts. Downsizing the HE fabrication mission at Pantex would reduce the number of direct workers associated with this mission to 37, compared to 105 for No Action. Transferring the HE fabrication mission to either LANL or LLNL would create small positive socioeconomic impacts at either of those sites, and small negative socioeconomic impacts at Pantex, due to the phaseout of this mission. For surge operations at LANL, 67 new direct jobs would be created, but no indirect jobs would be created by this industry. The 67 new jobs would cause the regional economic area unemployment rate to decrease from 6.2 to 6.1 percent. Housing/rental vacancies and public finance expenditures/revenues would change by less than 1 percent. For surge operations at LLNL, 100 new direct jobs would be created, along with 155 indirect jobs. The 255 total new jobs would cause the regional economic area unemployment rate to decrease by less than 1 percent. Housing/rental vacancies and public finance expenditures/revenues would change by less than 1 percent. Phasing out the HE fabrication mission at Pantex would cause the loss of 105 direct jobs, which would be approximately 3 percent of the projected No Action workforce at Pantex. The direct plus indirect jobs lost would cause no observable change to the Pantex regional economic area unemployment rate, housing/rental vacancies, and public finance expenditures/revenues.

During construction activities, socioeconomic impacts would result, but they would be small. The number of peak workers would be 29 at Pantex, 46 at LANL, and 19 at LLNL. At all three sites, the socioeconomic impacts during construction would not cause any socioeconomic indicator to change by more than 1 percent.

Resource Impacts. For the three "action" alternatives, construction impacts are expected to be minor and would involve internal modifications to existing facilities. No land would be disturbed at Pantex or LANL, and thus, no impacts to cultural or biotic resources would result. At LLNL, a small area of land (less than 1 ha) would be disturbed to construct an HE and parts storage building, but impacts to biotic and cultural resources are not expected.

Because each of the alternatives would utilize similar facilities, procedures, resources, and numbers of workers during operation, each of the alternatives would result in similar operational environmental impacts for most resource areas. Impacts to air quality were modeled for each alternative, and results indicate minimal impacts to air quality for each of the alternatives. At all sites, water requirements would be met from groundwater. At Pantex, this alternative applies only in conjunction with the downsize A/D alternative at Pantex discussed earlier. Downsizing both missions would reduce groundwater withdrawals by 16 percent compared to No Action. At LANL, groundwater withdrawals would increase by less than 1 percent over projected No Action water requirements, and LANL's groundwater allotment would not be exceeded. At LLNL, groundwater and/or the public water supply could be used to support the HE fabrication mission. If public water were used, it would require approximately 21 percent of the design capacity of the public water tap line. If groundwater were used, withdrawals would increase by approximately 65 percent from No Action, but they would not have any adverse impacts to aquifer levels.

Radiation and Waste Management Impacts. There are no radiological risks to workers or the public associated with the HE fabrication mission and no adverse impacts associated with normal operation. All three site alternatives have adequate existing waste management facilities to treat, store, and/or dispose of wastes that would be generated by this mission.

Accident Impacts. Potential impacts from chemical accidents or explosions were determined using modeling. Impacts from these types of accidents could include death or bodily damage. Due to proximity, workers would be most susceptible to any potential impacts. For all postulated accidents, impacts to the public were much less than to workers. In the event of an accident involving HE fabrication, due to the higher population surrounding LLNL, public impacts could be higher at LLNL compared to LANL and Pantex. Lastly, transferring the HE fabrication mission from Pantex to LANL and/or LLNL would require HE components to be shipped from the fabrication site to the A/D Facility. HE is a nonradioactive, hazardous material. There are no impacts associated with the incident-free transportation of HE. In the event of an accident, HE transportation impacts would be no greater than those encountered by the public from industry's transportation of similar explosives. Potential accidents could include both explosive and nonexplosive roadway accidents, with potential impacts of death, lesser bodily injury, and property damage.

Nonnuclear Fabrication. In addition to the No Action alternative, two alternatives are being considered that would meet the needs of the Program: (1) downsizing the facilities that presently perform this mission at KCP and (2) transferring the KCP nonnuclear fabrication mission to LANL, LLNL, and SNL by upgrading existing nonnuclear fabrication capabilities at LANL and LLNL and constructing new nonnuclear fabrication facilities at SNL. Under No Action, the nonnuclear fabrication mission would remain at current locations; primarily at KCP, with small workloads at SNL and LANL.

Socioeconomic Impacts. At KCP, workforce downsizing consistent with a reduced workload has already taken place; therefore, the projected No Action workforce (3,179 workers) is equal to the current workforce. Of these 3,179 workers, 2,508 workers perform core stockpile management missions. The downsized KCP facility would be optimally configured for the reduced future workload, would operate more efficiently, and would require 1,669 core stockpile management workers for single-shift operation. To perform operations in the downsized KCP facility in a three-shift mode, 2,257 workers would be required. This is 251 workers less than the No Action single-shift number of workers. Another 443 indirect jobs would also be lost. The loss of a total of 694 jobs (direct plus indirect jobs) would not cause the regional economic area unemployment rate to change.

Transferring the nonnuclear fabrication mission to the laboratories would create small positive socioeconomic impacts at both LANL and LLNL, with increases of 240 and 131 total (direct plus indirect) jobs, respectively. At each of these sites, socioeconomic indicators would change by less than 1 percent. At SNL, 1,160 direct jobs would be created, along with 1,350 indirect jobs. The 2,510 new jobs would cause the regional economic area unemployment rate to decrease from 5.7 to 5.2 percent. Housing/rental vacancies and public finance expenditures/revenues would change by less than 1 percent. Phasing out the nonnuclear fabrication mission from KCP would cause the loss of 3,179 direct jobs and the loss of 5,609 indirect jobs in the regional economic area. The loss of 8,788 total jobs from KCP would cause the regional economic area unemployment rate to increase from 4.9 to 5.6 percent. Housing/rental vacancies and public finance expenditures/revenues would change by less than 1 percent. Some socioeconomic impacts could be mitigated by employing personnel for D&D of the KCP facility, although that is not expected to last more than 5 years.

During construction activities, socioeconomic impacts would result, but would be small. At KCP, 187 direct jobs would be created during downsizing activities, plus another 262 indirect jobs. The 449 total jobs created during construction at KCP would represent less than a 1 percent increase in the regional economic area, and would cause no observable change to the regional economic area unemployment rate, housing/rental vacancies, and public finance expenditures/revenues. If the nonnuclear fabrication mission is transferred to the three laboratories, no observable socioeconomic impacts would occur at LANL or LLNL. At SNL, 379 direct jobs would be created during construction activities, plus another 421 indirect jobs. The 800 total jobs created during construction at SNL would represent less than a 1 percent increase in employment in the regional economic area, and would not cause any socioeconomic indicator to change by more than 1 percent.

Resource Impacts. Due to the reduced workload expected in the future, impacts from operations are expected to be less than current impacts. Air quality would remain within regulatory limits at each of the sites, and water requirements would be adequately met.

For the alternative that would downsize KCP, the construction activities would involve internal modifications to the existing facility. No land would be disturbed. For the alternative that would transfer the KCP mission to the laboratories, construction impacts would involve internal facility modifications at LANL and LLNL. At SNL, approximately 9 ha (22 acres) of land would be disturbed to construct a new facility. This represents approximately 6 percent of the undisturbed land at SNL. Potential impacts to cultural and biotic resources would exist, but they would be mitigated to the extent practicable during follow-on, site-specific studies.

Because each of the alternatives would utilize similar facilities, procedures, resources, and numbers of workers during operation, each of the alternatives would result in similar operational environmental impacts for most resource areas. Impacts to air quality were modeled for each alternative. Modeling results indicate minimal impacts to air quality for each of the alternatives. Water requirements for nonnuclear fabrication are relatively minor at each of the sites. At KCP, water requirements, which are publicly provided, would be reduced by approximately 31 percent compared to No Action. At LANL, groundwater withdrawals would increase by less than 1 percent over projected No Action water requirements, and LANL's groundwater allotment would not be exceeded. At LLNL, there would also be a less than 1 percent increase in water requirements to support nonnuclear fabrication. At SNL, groundwater would be used. Groundwater withdrawals would increase by approximately 64 percent over projected No Action withdrawals, but would still represent only 29 percent of the Kirtland Air Force Base groundwater rights. Thus, no adverse impacts are expected.

Radiation, Waste Management, and Accident Impacts. There are no radiological risks to workers or the public associated with the nonnuclear fabrication mission, and there are no adverse impacts associated with normal operation. Accident profiles at the sites would not change as a result of downsizing KCP or transferring the nonnuclear fabrication mission to the laboratories. Phaseout of the nonnuclear mission from KCP would eliminate any potential accidents at that site. Lastly, all three site alternatives have adequate existing waste management facilities to treat, store, and/or dispose of wastes that would be generated by this mission.

Stockpile Management Top-Level Comparison. Based upon the reasonable alternatives for the five major missions that make up the stockpile management program, one could construct a matrix with a large number of discrete alternatives for the entire Complex. Analyzing such a large number of alternatives is neither practical nor useful. What is useful, however, is to look at the two extreme configurations for the entire Complex in order to compare environmental impacts for a bounding case analysis. Based on the alternatives that are reasonable for the individual missions, the bounding configurations and environmental impacts for the Complex are a relatively unconsolidated Complex that is downsized/rightsized in place or a relatively consolidated Complex that is rightsized by upsizing the laboratories and NTS.

For the first configuration (referred to as Downsize/Rightsize-in-Place), the Complex would consist of A/D at Pantex, HE fabrication at Pantex, pit fabrication at LANL (or SRS), secondary and case fabrication at ORR, and nonnuclear fabrication at KCP. This is essentially the preferred alternative for stockpile management. For the second configuration (referred to as Maximum Consolidation), the Complex would consist of A/D at NTS, HE fabrication at LANL (or LLNL), pit fabrication at LANL, secondary and case fabrication at LANL (or LLNL), and nonnuclear fabrication at SNL, LANL, and LLNL. Major differences in environmental impacts between these two configurations are presented below.

Socioeconomic Impacts. It is worthy to note that some of the reductions in workforce at the various stockpile management facilities are associated with reduced workloads expected in the future, while additional reductions in workforce could occur due to the physical downsizing of facilities. For the A/D and HE missions at Pantex, under No Action, the core stockpile management workforce would be reduced from the current level of 3,107 workers (3,002 for A/D and 105 for HE) to 1,020 workers (9l5 for A/D and 105 for HE) for single-shift operation. The physical downsizing of the facility would also improve efficiency such that the workforce could be reduced even further, to 831 workers for single-shift operation (800 for A/D and 31 for HE). Three-shift operation of the downsized Pantex facility would require 1,303 core stockpile management workers (1266 for A/D and 37 for HE).

For the secondary and case fabrication mission at ORR, under No Action, the workforce would be reduced from the current level of 3,126 core stockpile management workers to 2,741 workers for single-shift operation. The physical downsizing of Y-12 (essentially an 86-percent reduction in facility size) would also improve efficiency such that the core stockpile management workforce could be reduced even further, to 784 workers for single-shift operation. Three-shift operation of the downsized Y-12 facility would require 1,376 core stockpile management workers. The adverse socioeconomic impacts associated with the Y-12 downsizing would be mitigated by the creation of 1,152 new jobs associated with landlord activities in preparation for the D&D of the facilities no longer needed.

At KCP, workforce reductions consistent with a reduced workload have already taken place; therefore, the projected No Action workforce (2,508 core stockpile management workers) is equal to the current workforce. Downsizing the KCP facility would improve efficiency such that the workforce could be reduced to 1,669 workers for single-shift operation. Three-shift operation of the downsized KCP facility would require 2,257 workers.

Overall, socioeconomic impacts from construction for the Maximum Consolidation configuration would be minimal, except at NTS and SNL. Socioeconomic impacts from construction for the Downsize/Rightsize-in-Place configuration would also be minimal.

Resource Impacts. Construction impacts associated with the Downsize/Rightsize-in-Place configuration would be minimal. All construction activities would be modifications to existing facilities, with no new construction. Consequently, no significant land disturbance at any sites would result, and no potential impacts to biota or cultural resources would occur.

Construction impacts associated with the Maximum Consolidation configuration would be small overall; only the Device Assembly Facility upgrade at NTS and the Nonnuclear Facility at SNL involve any land disturbance greater than 1 ha (2.47 acres). Most construction activities would be modifications to existing facilities, with no significant land disturbance, and no potential impacts to biota or cultural resources.

During operation, because each of the two configurations would utilize similar facilities, procedures, resources, and numbers of workers, each would result in similar operational environmental impacts for most resource areas. For the Maximum Consolidation configuration, the greatest potential for any significant environmental impacts would occur at LANL, which would be the site for pit fabrication, secondary and case fabrication, HE fabrication, and a portion of nonnuclear fabrication. For each of the resources evaluated in this PEIS, no significant impacts are expected from such consolidation. Modeling results for air quality indicate minimal impacts to air quality. Water requirements would increase at LANL by 2.5 percent, but would still be less than the LANL allotment.

Radiation, Waste Management, and Accident Impacts. Cumulative doses to the population from normal operation would be less than regulatory limits. Impacts from accidents are independent of other missions (e.g., accident risks are additive, not multiplicative). Thus, the potential accident would be the sum of the risks from each mission. For maximum consolidation at LANL, there would be a statistical risk that one fatal cancer to a member of the public would result aproximately every 135,000 years from accidents. LANL would have adequate existing waste management facilities to treat, store, and/or dispose of wastes that would be generated by these missions.

A difference in the operation of the Downsize/Rightsize-in-Place configuration and the Maximum Consolidation configuration would involve the transportation of nuclear and hazardous materials. The Downsize/Rightsize-in-Place configuration would result in transporting plutonium components between LANL (or SRS) and Pantex, and transporting secondary and case components between ORR and Pantex. Incident-free impacts associated with this transportation are small, while accident impacts are minor. The Maximum Consolidation configuration would also result in transporting plutonium components and secondary and case components. Transportation would occur between LANL and NTS. Relative to the Downsize/Rightsize-in-Place configuration, any transportation impacts would be less due to shorter distances and less populated roadways. The Maximum Consolidation configuration would also result in transporting HE components between LANL and NTS, but no significant impacts are expected.

3.7.2 Stockpile Stewardship

Proposed National Ignition Facility. The following comparisons have been summarized from the more-detailed comparisons for the NIF alternatives found in appendix section I.3.5.

The NIF project-specific analysis addresses the impacts of constructing and operating NIF at four alternative sites: LLNL (preferred), LANL, SNL, and NTS (including NLVF). A No Action alternative is also assessed.

Under No Action, DOE would rely on existing aboveground experimental facilities, predominantly the Nova Facility at LLNL, to study the physics of nuclear weapons secondaries. No construction impacts are associated with the No Action alternative and the operational impacts of the Nova Facility have been accounted for in the overall environmental baseline presented for LLNL.

For the action alternative, the analysis indicates that there would be few significant differences in environmental impacts at the candidate sites. The maximum 24-hour concentration of particulate matter 10 microns or smaller (PM₁₀) in the air during site clearing would exceed applicable standards at LLNL and NLVF. However, the ambient air quality impacts would be localized and of short duration. Uncommitted land requirements would be greatest at NTS (18.2odyText"> At each NIF alternative site, beneficial socioeconomic impacts associated with construction and operation would occur. During construction, 270 to 470 direct new jobs would be created in the peak year of activity. These direct jobs would create indirect jobs such that the total jobs during the peak year would be: 2,870 at LLNL; 1,130 at LANL; 1,640 at NTS; and 1,770 at SNL. Once operations begin, NIF would employ 330 direct workers. The total number of jobs (direct plus indirect) during operation would be 890 at LLNL, 600 at LANL, 620 at NTS, and 670 at SNL.

Over the 30-year operational life of NIF, the public would be exposed to a very small dose of radiation. No cancer fatalities would be expected to occur from exposures associated with routine NIF operations under either the Conceptual Design or Enhanced options. A radiological accident at NIF would not cause any cancer fatalities to the public except possibly at NLVF and SNL. Under postulated accident conditions, radiological impacts to the public and workers would be minor. The highest calculated radiation dose is 4,900 person-rem. At most, two cancer fatalities could occur if an accidental release occurred. Because of the extremely low accidental release frequency (2x10^-8 /yr), the risk of radiation-caused cancer fatalities from the postulated accident at any site is essentially zero. The cancer fatality risk associated with radiological exposure from an accident involving the transport of NIF tritium targets would range from 1x10-8 to 8x10-10/yr; whereas the nonradiological fatality risks associated with vehicular emissions and accidents would be in the range of 10-3 to 10-4/yr.

Although each candidate site would implement waste minimization practices, the generation of additional wastes would be unavoidable. All candidate sites have current or planned capacity to handle wastes associated with construction and operation of NIF; however, this would entail offsite shipment of some of the wastes for all sites but LANL.

NIF would comply with all applicable Federal, state, and local environmental regulatory requirements, including the California Environmental Quality Act if NIF is sited in the State of California. Such compliance functions as a general form of mitigation. The candidate sites have also established several mitigative measures for construction actions that would also be applicable to NIF construction. While each of these mitigative measures may be minor, in combination they could significantly reduce impacts to the environmental resources of the selected site.

With regard to unavoidable impacts, land clearing and construction activities for NIF would eliminate habitat and destroy or displace wildlife. Construction of new facilities could result in short-term disturbances of previously undisturbed biological habitats. These disturbances could cause long-term reductions in the biological productivity of an area. Construction of NIF would replace natural habitat with areas of pavement and buildings. Depending upon the candidate site selected, this conversion could extend the influence of urbanized/industrial habitats into natural areas, increase fragmentation of natural habitat, and cause minor loss of habitat used by rare species. However, no critical habitat for federally threatened or endangered species would be affected. Radiological doses to the general public from NIF operation would be no more than 20e addition of the incremental effects of the construction and operation of NIF to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at the selected site. Fugitive dust emissions from construction of NIF would be an incremental addition to the already existing environmental impact of dust emissions to the atmosphere. Minor changes in stormwater runoff are expected due to removal of grass cover during NIF construction and increased runoff from pavement during facility operation.

Proposed Contained Firing Facility. The following comparisons have been summarized from the more-detailed information for CFF found in appendix J.

Under No Action, DOE would rely on existing aboveground experimental facilities, predominantly the existing hydrotest facilities at LLNL, LANL, and NTS to study the physics of nuclear weapons primaries. No construction impacts are associated with those existing facilities, and the operational impacts of those facilities have been accounted for in the overall environmental baseline presented for LLNL, LANL, and NTS.

Because the proposal for CFF involves modification to the existing FXR Facility, construction impacts are expected to be small. Very little land would be disturbed and the construction activities would largely involve internal modifications to the existing facility. Wastes and socioeconomic impacts from construction would be negligible.

Impacts associated with operations would also be negligible. CFF would not utilize any significant quantities of resources, would not cause any significant socioeconomic changes at LLNL, and would not generate large quantities of hazardous or low-level wastes. LLNL has adequate existing waste management facilities to treat, store, and/or dispose of wastes that would be generated by CFF. Impacts to human health from CFF operations are expected to be extremely small and within regulatory limits.

Proposed Atlas Facility. The following comparisons have been summarized from the more-detailed information for the Atlas Facility found in appendix K.

Under No Action, DOE would rely on existing aboveground experimental facilities, predominantly the Pegasus Facility at TA-35 at LANL, to study the physics of nuclear weapon secondaries. No construction impacts are associated with that facility, and the operational impacts from Pegasus have been accounted for in the overall environmental baseline presented for LANL.

Because the proposal for the Atlas Facility involves modification to the existing facilities within TA-35, construction impacts are expected to be small. Very little land would be disturbed and the construction activities would largely involve internal modifications to the existing facility. Wastes and socioeconomic impacts from modification activities would be negligible.

Impacts associated with operations would also be negligible. The Atlas Facility would not utilize any significant quantities of resources, would not cause any significant socioeconomic changes at LANL, and would not generate large quantities of hazardous or low-level wastes. LANL has adequate existing waste management facilities to treat, store, and/or dispose of wastes that would be generated by the Atlas Facility. Impacts to human health from Atlas Facility operations are expected to be small and within regulatory limits.

3.8 Preferred Alternative

CEQ regulations require an agency to identify its preferred alternative(s) in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (40 CFR 1502.14[e]). The preferred alternative is the alternative which the agency believes would best fulfill its statutory mission, considering environmental, economic, technical, and other factors. This PEIS provides information on the environmental impacts. Cost, schedule, and technical analyses have also been prepared, and are presented in the Analysis of Stockpile Management Alternatives report (DOE 1996j) and the Stockpile Management Preferred Alternatives Report (DOE 1996k), which are available in the appropriate DOE Public Reading Rooms for public review.

DOE has identified the following preferred alternatives for the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program:

Stockpile Stewardship:

• Construct and operate NIF at LLNL
• Construct and operate CFF at LLNL
• Construct and operate the Atlas Facility at LANL

Stockpile Management:

• Secondary and Case Component Fabrication--downsize the Y-12 Plant at ORR
• Pit Component Fabrication--reestablish capability and appropriate capacity at LANL
• Assembly/Disassembly--downsize at Pantex
• High Explosives Fabrication--downsize at Pantex
• Nonnuclear Component Fabrication--downsize at KCP
• Based on the analyses performed to support this PEIS, the preferred alternatives for strategic reserve storage are as follows: (1) HEU strategic reserve storage at Y-12 and (2) plutonium pit strategic reserve storage in Zone 12 at Pantex. The preferred alternatives for strategic reserve storage could change based upon decisions to be made in regard to the Storage and Disposition PEIS. Decisions on strategic reserve storage will not be made in the upcoming ROD for the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program. Storage decisions are not expected to be made until both the Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS and the Storage and Disposition PEIS are completed.

The preferred alternative for plutonium-242 oxide at SRS is to transport the material to LANL for storage.

The preferred PEIS alternatives do not represent decisions by DOE. Rather, they reflect DOE's preferences based on existing information. The ROD, when issued, will describe DOE's decisions for the Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS proposed actions.

Table 3.7.1-1.--Summary Comparison of Impacts for Assembly/Disassembly and High Explosives Fabrication Missions

Table 3.7.1-2.-- Summary Comparison of Impacts for the Nonnuclear Fabrication Mission

Table 3.7.1-4.--Summary Comparison of Impacts for the Secondary and Case Fabrication Mission