4.6.3 Environmental Impacts

4.6.3.1 Land Use

No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue current and planned activities at LANL as described in section 3.2.6. No additional land use impacts are anticipated at LANL beyond the effects of the existing and future activities that are independent of the proposed action.

Management Alternatives

Pit Fabrication. The existing plutonium facility at LANL would be modified to support this alternative. Additional land would not be used to implement the new mission. The proposed activity would be compatible and consistent with land use plans and policies. Impacts to land use are not expected.

Secondary and Case Fabrication. The secondary and case fabrication alternative at LANL would use existing facilities, equipment, and infrastructure to support production requirements for the secondary fabrication mission. Only minimal modifications to existing facilities at LANL would be required. Additional land would not be used to implement the new mission. These activities would be compatible and consistent with land use plans and policies. Impacts to land use are not expected.

High Explosives Fabrication. The proposed HE fabrication activities would be conducted in existing LANL facilities. No new facilities or structures would be required to support HE fabrication. Additional land would not be used to implement the mission. The proposed activity would be compatible and consistent with land use plans and policies. Impacts to land use are not expected.

Nonnuclear Fabrication. LANL would use existing facilities to support nonnuclear fabrication activities. Additional land would not be used to implement the mission. The proposed activity would be compatible and consistent with land use plans and policies. Impacts to land use are not expected.

Sensitivity Analysis . LANL would be able to accommodate the high and low case production operations for all management alternatives with base case production facilities. No land-use impacts are expected.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility. The proposed location of NIF at LANL is within TA-58. An estimated 4 ha (10 acres) of land for buildings, walkways, building access, and buffer space would be required to construct and operate NIF. The land required for the proposed NIF would represent approximately 1 percent of the land currently available for development within LANL. However, 4 ha (10 acres) represents an extremely small proportion of LANL's total land area of 111 km² (43 mi² ). The proposed NIF is compatible and consistent with land-use plans for this area. No impacts to LANL land-use plans or policies are expected.

Proposed Atlas Facility. The proposed Atlas Facility would include existing buildings located in a developed area within TA-35 at LANL. Modification activities would involve renovating the existing buildings for use in performing pulsed-power experiments. The area is currently used for similar types of activities. The proposed Atlas Facility activity would be compatible and consistent with land use plans for the area. Impacts to LANL land-use plans and policies are not expected.

Combined Program Impacts. Of the six potential Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program alternatives proposed for LANL, existing facilities would be modified for five of the alternatives. No additional land would be used to implement the mission. The proposed NIF would require clearing 4 ha (10 acres) of undeveloped land for buildings, walkways, and buffer space. The total land use impact from placing all potential Program alternatives at LANL would be the use of 4 ha (10 acres) of undeveloped land in TA-58 for the new NIF mission.

Potential Mitigation Measures . No mitigation measures for stockpile stewardship and management alternatives at LANL are anticipated.

4.6.3.2 Site Infrastructure

This section discusses site infrastructure at LANL for No Action and the modifications needed for actions due to construction and operation of stockpile stewardship and management facilities. A comparison of site infrastructure and facility resource needs for No Action and the proposed alternatives is presented in table 4.6.3.2-1.

No Action. This alternative continues the management missions, described in section 3.2.6, of limited pit fabrication and selected nonnuclear fabrication, and the stewardship R&D missions. As stated in section 1.6.2, the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test (DARHT) Facility is considered part of No Action. Impacts on site infrastructure would be minimal since the Pulsed High Energy Radiation Machine Emitting X-Rays (PHERMEX) Facility would be phased out as the DARHT Facility becomes operational. As shown in table 4.6.3.2-1, the site infrastructure would continue to adequately supply facility requirements.

Management Alternatives

Pit Fabrication. As shown in table 4.6.3.2-1, site infrastructure would require slight facility improvements to meet pit fabrication requirements. Only a slight increase over No Action requirements in electrical energy and natural gas use is expected. No other impacts to site infrastructure are expected.

Secondary and Case Fabrication. Site infrastructure would require slight facility improvements to meet secondary and case fabrication requirements. Table 4.6.3.2-1 shows the total site requirement with secondary and case fabrication and the change from No Action. Impacts to site infrastructure include a 9-percent increase in electrical energy use over No Action requirements. The electric power pool has sufficient capacity margins to accommodate the secondary and case fabrication mission. There would also be an increase in liquid fuel use.

High Explosives Fabrication. Site infrastructure would require minor facility improvements to meet HE fabrication requirements. Impacts to site infrastructure include an increase in liquid fuel use over No Action requirements. An 8-percent increase in natural gas use would occur, but there would be only a slight increase in electrical energy use over No Action requirements. This analysis assumes the entire HE mission is relocated to LANL. If it is shared with LLNL, the impact would be proportionately less.

Nonnuclear Fabrication. Minor site infrastructure facility improvements would be needed to meet nonnuclear fabrication requirements. As shown in table 4.6.3.2-1, only a slight increase in energy use is expected. No other impacts to site infrastructure are expected.

Sensitivity Analysis . No change in site infrastructure impacts are expected for the high and low production case for pit, secondary and case, and HE fabrication. For nonnuclear fabrication, the high production case would require using additional facilities, namely Buildings 300 and 301 at S-Site. Also, additional capital equipment would need to be added to increase processing, storage, and inventory control capability. No additional site infrastructure changes would be needed to meet the low production case.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility. As shown in table 4.6.3.2-1, site infrastructure would require slight facility improvements to meet the proposed NIF requirements. Impacts to site infrastructure include a 11-percent increase in electrical energy use, a 22-percent increase in peak electrical loads, and a 2-percent increase in natural gas use over No Action requirements. The electric power pool has sufficient capacity margins to accommodate the proposed NIF.

Table 4.6.3.2-1.-- Site Infrastructure Requirements and Changes for Stockpile Stewardship and Management Alternatives at Los Alamos National Laboratory

Proposed Atlas Facility. The LANL site infrastructure would require minor facility improvements to meet the proposed Atlas Facility requirements. Table 4.6.3.2-1 shows the expected change in site requirements to support the Atlas Facility. Impacts to site infrastructure include no increase in peak electrical load requirements due to utilization of existing generators currently used for other experiments and only a slight increase in electrical energy use over No Action requirements. No other impacts to site infrastructure are expected.

Combined Program Impacts. If all of the alternatives applicable to LANL were to be located there, the combined impacts would exceed current site infrastructure resources. The largest impact would be a 25-percent increase in electrical energy use with an associated 31-percent increase in peak electrical load. Natural gas use would increase by 10 percent. Consumption of liquid fuel, which is currently used for standby power only and shows no amount in table 4.6.3.2-1, would increase to about 197,400 L per year.

Potential Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are anticipated.

4.6.3.3 Air Quality

No Action. No Action air quality utilizes estimated air emissions data from operations at LANL in 2005, assuming continuation of current site missions, to calculate pollutant concentrations at or beyond the LANL site boundary. Included in the criteria and toxic/hazardous emissions from LANL are those emissions estimated for operation of the DARHT Facility currently under construction. The emission rates for criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants for No Action are presented in appendix table B.3.6-1. Table 4.6.3.3-1 presents the No Action pollutant concentrations calculated from the 2005 emission rates. In this table, pollutant concentrations are compared with applicable Federal and state regulations and guidelines. Concentrations are expected to remain within these standards.

Table 4.6.3.3-1.-- Estimated Concentrations of Pollutants from No Action and Stockpile Stewardship and Management Alternatives at Los Alamos National Laboratory

Management Alternatives

Pit Fabrication. Operation of the Pit Fabrication Facility would generate criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels for space heating and manufacturing processes. The emissions consist of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and VOCs. Emission rates of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants for annual operation of the Pit Fabrication Facility are presented in appendix table B.3.6-1. Table 4.6.3.3-1 presents the concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants resulting from No Action and those generated from operation of the Pit Fabrication Facility. Concentrations of pollutants resulting from operation of this facility added to No Action concentrations are expected to remain within Federal and state regulations.

Secondary and Case Fabrication. The Secondary and Case Fabrication Facility would generate criteria and toxic/hazardous emissions resulting from operation of the plant boiler, component manufacturing, and chemical processes. Reasonably available control technology would be used to minimize pollutant emissions. This would include using HEPA filters to contain particulate emissions and providing liquid scrubbing prior to HEPA filtration to remove chemical vapors such as nitric acid. Emission rates for criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants for the secondary and case fabrication mission are presented in appendix table B.3.6-1. Table 4.6.3.3-1 presents the concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants resulting from No Action and those generated from operation of the secondary and case fabrication mission. The resulting concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants are expected to remain within Federal and state regulations and guidelines. Modeled estimates for the 24-hour concentration of nitrogen dioxide, however, are above the applicable standard.

High Explosives Fabrication. Gaseous emissions of criteria and toxic/hazardous air pollutants would be generated from HE fabrication. These emissions would result from open burn/open detonation of nonradioactive scrap HE and HE-contaminated waste, plant boiler operation, cleaning operations using solvents, and formulation and synthesis operations. Emission rates for criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants for HE fabrication are presented in appendix table B.3.6-1. Table 4.6.3.3-1 presents the concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants resulting from No Action and those generated from HE fabrication. The resulting concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants are expected to be within Federal and state regulations and guidelines.

Nonnuclear Fabrication. Aerial emissions of combustion by-products from the slight increase in process steam usage would result in an increase of 159 kg (350 lb) of VOCs. This emission rate is based upon the increase of natural gas combustion needed to generate an additional 1 million British thermal units of energy. Pollutant emissions of combustion by-products for steam and gas heating systems for normal building operations are not considered, as the facilities are existing and no increases in emissions would occur as a result of the proposed activity. Table 4.6.3.3-1 presents the concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants resulting from No Action and nonnuclear fabrication. Concentrations of pollutants resulting from operation of nonnuclear fabrication added to No Action concentrations are expected to remain within Federal and state regulations.

Sensitivity Analysis. Impacts to air quality from either the low or high case scenario of the program alternative would result in higher and lower concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants for the high and low case, respectively. The concentrations of pollutants for the high case pit fabrication, HE, and nonnuclear fabrication missions are expected to be within applicable Federal and state regulations and guidelines. The 24-hour concentration of nitrogen dioxide for the high case secondary and case fabrication mission is above applicable standards and guidelines.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility. Operation of the proposed NIF would generate criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants resulting from the combustion of boiler fuel for heating, operation of diesel generators, and solvent cleaning processes. The emissions consist of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and VOCs. Boiler fuel is assumed to be natural gas. Emission rates of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants for annual operation of the proposed NIF are presented in appendix table B.3.6-1. Table 4.6.3.3-1 presents the concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants resulting from No Action and those generated from operation of the proposed NIF. Concentrations of pollutants resulting from operation of the proposed NIF added to No Action concentrations are expected to remain within Federal and state regulations.

Proposed Atlas Facility. Operation of the Atlas Facility would not typically generate criteria pollutants; however, for purposes of this analysis it is anticipated that small amounts of lead or other similar heavy metals might be released as a volatilized metal from the target chamber following certain occasional experiments. Toxic/hazardous emissions would be generated by the Atlas Facility following each experiment due to the evaporation of solvents used to clean the inside of the target chamber. The quantity of air emissions resulting from each experiment are small and therefore require no facility air filtration or scrubbers. Emission rates of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants for annual operation of the proposed Atlas Facility are presented in appendix table B.3.6-1. Table 4.6.3.3-1 presents the concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants resulting from No Action and those generated from operation of the proposed Atlas Facility. Concentrations of pollutants resulting from operation of the proposed Atlas Facility added to No Action concentrations are expected to remain within Federal and state regulations.

Combined Program Impacts. The combined Program impacts to air quality, assuming that each of the proposed stewardship and management alternatives are located at LANL, are presented in table 4.6.3.3-1. The table presents total program concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants derived by adding the contribution from each alternative. The contribution to air pollutants was determined for each alternative independently from each of the other alternatives. Therefore, adding the respective contributions presents a conservative estimate of the combined impacts to air quality since the maximum pollutant concentration for each alternative would not occur at the same time or location at or beyond the site boundary.

Using this conservative estimate of the combined impacts to air quality at LANL, the data indicate that the 24-hour concentration of nitrogen dioxide may result in a concentration above the applicable State of New Mexico ambient air quality standard. All other criteria and/or toxic/hazardous air pollutants are expected to be within applicable standards.

Potential Mitigation Measures. The use of reasonably available control technology may contribute to the reduction of concentrations of nitrogen dioxide.

4.6.3.4 Water Resources

Environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the potential stockpile stewardship and management facilities at LANL could affect surface and groundwater resources. All water required for construction or operation would be supplied from groundwater. The proposed sites for the new or modified facilities would be outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains. A description of the activities that would continue at LANL is provided in section 3.2.6. Table 4.6.3.4-1 presents existing surface water and groundwater resources and the potential changes to water resources at LANL resulting from the proposed alternatives. The total site water resources requirements for each alternative including No Action are displayed in this table. Combined program impacts if all alternatives were implemented at LANL are also listed.

Surface Water

No Action. Since there would be no construction under No Action, no additional construction water would be required or discharged. Current wastewater discharge would remain at 693 MLY in the No Action year 2005.

Management Alternatives

Pit Fabrication. Existing facilities would be modified at TA-55 to accept the pit fabrication mission. Modification activities would take place in TAs atop mesas and would not be affected by a 500-year flood. No surface water would be withdrawn for stockpile stewardship and management activities. Impacts to surface water resources associated with runoff and wastewater discharged during the modification phase would be negligible.

Table 4.6.3.4-1.-- Potential Changes to Water Resources from Stockpile Stewardship and Management Alternatives at Los Alamos National Laboratory

During operation, sanitary and other liquid wastes would be treated at the Los Alamos Sanitary Treatment Facility. Treated wastewater would then be discharged to the canyons. The additional sanitary wastewater generated by the processes would be approximately 12.3 MLY (3.2 MGY). This represents an increase of approximately 1.8 percent over the projected sanitary wastewater generation rate of 693 MLY (183 MGY).

Secondary and Case Fabrication. During operation, nonhazardous sanitary liquid wastes would be disposed of by a sanitary collection system. Sanitary process and support liquids are sent by drain to the sanitary wastewater treatment plant (TA-46) and treated similarly to municipal sewage. The additional sanitary wastewater generated by the processes would be approximately 20.4 MLY (5.4 MGY). This represents an increase of approximately 2.9 percent over the projected sanitary wastewater generation rate of 693 MLY (183 MGY). No additional impacts to surface water are anticipated.

While brief downpours can cause local flash flooding, especially in canyons, streams, and other low spots, most of the LANL TAs, including TA-55, are located atop the finger mesas near drainage ditches and are not subject to flooding.

High Explosives Fabrication. During modification activities, no additional sanitary liquid waste or other liquid wastes would be generated. During operation, sanitary liquid and other liquid wastes would be treated at the Los Alamos Sanitary Treatment Facility before being discharged to the canyons. The HE fabrication processes would generate approximately 12.8 MLY (3.38 MGY) of additional sanitary wastewater. This represents an increase of approximately 1.8 percent over the projected sanitary wastewater generation rate of 693 MLY (183 MGY). Treated effluent would be monitored to comply with NPDES-permitted and other applicable discharge requirements. No adverse impacts to surface water or surface water quality are expected.

All proposed HE facilities and buildings at the Los Alamos HE Facility are located above the critical flood elevation of the potential flood source (i.e., river, dam, levee, and precipitation).

Nonnuclear Fabrication. An additional 0.005 MLY (0.001 MGY) of wastewater would be discharged during construction. Sanitary and other liquid wastes would be treated at the Los Alamos Sanitary Treatment Facility and then discharged to the canyons. The processes associated with nonnuclear fabrication would generate approximately 0.57 MLY (0.151 MGY) of additional sanitary wastewater. This represents approximately a 0.08-percent increase in the annual projected sanitary wastewater generation rate of 693 MLY (183 MGY). Treated effluent would be monitored to comply with NPDES permits and with applicable discharge requirements. No adverse impacts to surface water or surface water quality are expected.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility. The proposed NIF is expected to generate an additional 17.8 MLY (4.7 MGY) of sanitary wastewater. This amount would represent a 2.6-percent increase in the annual projected sanitary wastewater generation rate of 693 MLY (183 MGY). Consolidation of LANL's sewer system was completed in 1994 to bring all treatment systems into compliance with Federal and state regulations. Capacity of the consolidated sewer system would be sufficient to meet project requirements.

Because the canyons south and north of the NIF location are more than 20 m (65.6 ft) deep, the 100-year floodplain is contained within the canyons. Because of the depth of the canyons, impacts from a 500-year flood event are unlikely.

Proposed Atlas Facility. Existing buildings at TA-35 would be renovated for the proposed Atlas Facility. During modification activities and operations, a minimal amount of wastewater would be generated. Current wastewater capacities would be able to meet the additional requirements for the Atlas Facility. Additional information regarding the Atlas Facility at LANL is presented in appendix K. No additional wastewater would be discharged to surface water during construction, modification, or operation activities.

Groundwater

No Action. Water supply at LANL is provided by three DOE-owned well fields. Springs in the area produce approximately 1 percent of the water supply. Approximately 5,760 MLY (1,522 MGY) of water is produced.

Since there would be no construction or modifications under No Action, no additional groundwater for construction would be required. Baseline conditions and operations, described in section 4.6.2.4, would continue, and groundwater withdrawal would remain at 5,760 MLY (1,522 MGY) in 2005. No additional impacts to groundwater quality are anticipated since there are no direct discharges to groundwater.

Management Alternatives

Pit Fabrication. Water requirements for both the building modification activities and operation phase would be supplied from local groundwater sources. Minimal water would be needed during the building modification activities.

During operation, an additional 30.2 MLY (7.98 MGY) of water would be required to support pit fabrication activities, which is a 0.52-percent increase over the No Action groundwater withdrawal of 5,760 MLY (1,522 MGY). The projected water requirements for modification activities and operation would not constitute significant increases in the total amount of groundwater currently withdrawn by LANL and would not affect water supply in the area. The additional amount would still be below the LANL maximum allotment of 6,800 MLY (1,796 MGY).

Secondary and Case Fabrication. Approximately 1 MLY (0.26 MGY) of groundwater would be required for construction and modification activities.

Operation of the secondary and case fabrication facilities would require approximately 55 MLY (14.5 MGY), which is less than a 1-percent increase over the projected groundwater withdrawal of 5,760 MLY (1,522 MGY). The projected water requirements during operation would not constitute significant increases in the total amount of groundwater currently withdrawn by LANL and would not affect water supply in the area. The additional amount would still be below the LANL maximum allotment of 6,800 MLY (1,796 MGY).

High Explosives Fabrication. No additional groundwater would be needed for HE fabrication building modification activities. During modification, no wastewater would be discharged to groundwater. Adverse impacts to groundwater are not expected.

Operation of the HE fabrication facilities would require approximately 13 MLY (3.4 MGY), which is an increase of less than 1 percent over the projected groundwater withdrawal of 5,760 MLY (1,522 MGY). The projected water requirements during operation would not constitute significant increases in the total amount of groundwater currently withdrawn by LANL and would not affect water supply in the area. The additional amount of water would still be below the LANL maximum allotment of 6,800 MLY (1,796 MGY).

Nonnuclear Fabrication. Approximately 0.004 MLY of additional groundwater would be needed for building modification activities for nonnuclear fabrication. Operation of the nonnuclear fabrication facilities would require approximately 48.3 MLY (12.76 MGY), which is a 0.8-percent increase in the projected groundwater use of 5,760 MLY (1,522 MGY). The projected water requirements during operation would not constitute significant increases in the total amount of groundwater currently withdrawn by LANL, and would not affect water supply in the area.

Groundwater Quality. No process wastes from the proposed management alternatives would be discharged directly to the groundwater, and all treated wastewater discharges to the canyons would be monitored to comply with NPDES permit and other applicable discharge requirements. Given normal safeguards and precautions, no adverse impacts to groundwater quality are expected.

Sensitivity Analysis. The effluent discharges to surface waters resulting from the high stockpile case are expected to be similar or slightly greater than the volumes generated by the surge three-shift operation alternatives. The low case scenario would discharge a slightly larger volume of treated effluent compared to the No Action volume. Additional impacts to surface water quality would be negligible. Groundwater quality is not expected to be impacted by the low or high case production scenario at LANL.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility. During the proposed NIF's 5-year construction period, approximately 3 MLY (0.8 MGY) of water would be required. This amount is a 0.05-percent increase in the (2005) projected groundwater withdrawal of 5,760 MLY (1,522 MGY). Operation of the proposed NIF would require approximately 152 MLY (40.2 MGY), of which 17.8 MLY (4.7 MGY) would be for domestic use. This amount is a 2.6-percent increase in the projected groundwater withdrawal of 5,760 MLY (1,522 MGY). The projected water requirements during operation would not constitute significant increases in the total amount of groundwater projected to be withdrawn by LANL and would not affect water supply in the area. This additional amount would still be below the LANL maximum allotment of 6,800 MLY (1,800 MGY).

Proposed Atlas Facility. Existing buildings at TA-35 would require renovation for the proposed Atlas Facility. During modification activities and operation, a minimal amount of water would be required. Current water capacities would be able to meet the additional requirements for the proposed Atlas Facility. Additional information regarding the Atlas Facility at LANL is presented in appendix K.

Groundwater Quality. No process wastes from the proposed stewardship alternative would be discharged directly to the groundwater, and all treated wastewater discharges to the canyons would be monitored to comply with NPDES permit and other applicable discharge requirements. Given normal safeguards and precautions, no adverse impacts to groundwater quality are expected.

Combined Program Impacts. The combined Program impacts to water resources if each proposed alternative were implemented at LANL are shown in table 4.6.3.4-1. A negligible amount of water would be required for modification activities. Approximately 6,059 MLY (1,600 MGY) of groundwater would be required to operate the facilities; this represents a 5.2-percent increase in projected groundwater use and 89 percent of the current groundwater allotment at LANL. Wastewater discharges during construction and operation of the facilities would total approximately 0.6 MLY (0.2 MGY) and 64 MLY (17 MGY), respectively. All wastewater would be discharged to surface waters and would be monitored to comply with NPDES permit and other applicable discharge requirements. Given normal safeguards and precautions, no adverse impacts to surface water or groundwater quality are expected.

Potential Mitigation Measures. Because appropriate erosion and runoff management measures would be implemented during construction to comply with NPDES stormwater management regulations, no mitigation measures should be necessary. Stormwater measures include erosion control measures such as silt fences, dikes, and sediment traps to divert runoff away from disturbed areas and stabilization practices that cover soils with materials such as riprap or mulch in order to prevent direct exposure of soils to runoff.

4.6.3.5 Geology and Soils

The proposed alternatives for LANL would have no adverse impact on the geological resources described in section 4.6.2.5. Although a moderate seismic risk exists at LANL, this would be considered during design, construction, and operation of any new functions. The existing seismic risk does not preclude safe implementation and operation of the new functions. The LANL stockpile management alternatives and the proposed Atlas Facility would use existing structures within their current footprints. There would be a nominal amount of area required for equipment staging, material laydown, and parking. Existing facility space or developed areas would be used for these activities. Modification activities, with the exception of the erection of seismic reinforcement, would be within the existing building structures. There is sufficient parking for construction workers in lots adjacent to work areas.

The proposed NIF would require additional acreage, but would not adversely affect geological resources. Control measures would be used to minimize any soil erosion. Potential changes to geology and soils associated with the proposed alternatives at LANL are discussed below.

No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue current and planned activities at LANL. Any impacts to geology and soils would be independent of and unaffected by the proposed action.

Management Alternatives

Pit Fabrication. All new functions would be accommodated within existing structures; therefore, modification and operation activities would not affect geological conditions. Soil disturbance is not expected. The properties and conditions of the soils underlying the proposed site place no limitations on modification activities and operation. Soils would not adversely affect the safe operation of project facilities.

During implementation and operation of the new functions, seismic activity in the area could pose a potential hazard to the facilities and personnel at LANL. Modifications of site facilities to accommodate new pit fabrication functions would take into account the moderate seismic risk in the LANL area. All facilities would be designed for earthquake-generated ground acceleration in accordance with DOE O 420.1 and accompanying safety guides. Secondary effects from seismic activities, such as soil liquefaction or landslides, are not expected because of the depth of groundwater and relatively stable topography on top of the mesas. Hazards resulting from the return of volcanism during implementation or operation are unlikely (see section 4.6.2.5). Potential health impacts from accidents associated with geological hazards are discussed in section 4.6.3.9.

Secondary and Case Fabrication. Impacts to geology and soils from secondary and case fabrication at LANL would be similar to those described above for pit fabrication.

High Explosives Fabrication. Impacts to geology and soils from HE fabrication at LANL would be similar to those described above for pit fabrication.

Nonnuclear Fabrication. Impacts to geology and soils from nonnuclear fabrication at LANL would be similar to those described above for pit fabrication.

Sensitivity Analysis . The high or low case operation scenario for the proposed stockpile management alternatives at LANL would not affect geology or soils.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility. The construction and operation of the proposed NIF at LANL would not adversely affect geological resources. NIF would require the clearing of an estimated 4 ha (10 acres) of land for buildings, walkways, building access, and buffer space. Soil impacts during construction would be short term and minor with appropriate erosion and sediment control measures. Net soil disturbance during operation would be less than for construction because areas temporarily used for equipment and material laydown would be restored. Seismic risks would be taken into account during construction and operation of the proposed NIF (see appendix I).

Proposed Atlas Facility. The design, installation, and operation of the Atlas Facility in existing buildings at LANL would have no impact on geological resources. Seismic risks would be taken into account during design, implementation, and operation of the Atlas Facility (see appendix K).

Potential Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures for stockpile stewardship and management alternatives at LANL are anticipated.

4.6.3.6 Biotic Resources

The following sections address impacts to terrestrial resources, wetlands, aquatic resources, and threatened and endangered species at LANL. Although most alternatives would not impact these resources, the proposed NIF would result in a loss of terrestrial habitat and possible impacts to threatened and endangered species.

No Action. Under No Action, the limited replacement pit fabrication, selected nonnuclear fabrication, and stewardship R&D missions described in section 3.2.6 would continue at LANL. There would be no changes to current biotic resource conditions at the site as described in section 4.6.2.6.

Management Alternatives

Pit Fabrication. The pit fabrication and intrusive and nonintrusive modification pit reuse mission at LANL would utilize existing facilities within the boundaries of a number of the site's TAs. No new construction would be required and wastewater would be released through existing NPDES-permitted discharges. The operation of pit manufacturing facilities at LANL is not expected to impact biotic resources.

Secondary and Case Fabrication. The secondary and case fabrication mission, would take place in existing structures located within a number of the site's TAs. No new construction would be required and wastewater would be released through existing NPDES permitted discharges. The operation of the secondary and case fabrication mission facilities at LANL is not expected to impact biotic resources.

High Explosives Fabrication. The HE fabrication mission would take place in existing structures located within a number of the site's TAs. No new construction would be required and wastewater would be released through existing NPDES-permitted discharges. The operation of HE fabrication mission facilities at LANL is not expected to impact biotic resources.

Nonnuclear Fabrication. Nonnuclear fabrication mission elements that would be moved to LANL would be located in existing buildings within a number of the site's TAs. No new construction would be required and wastewater would be released through existing NPDES-permitted discharges. The relocation of the nonnuclear fabrication mission to LANL is not expected to impact biotic resources.

Sensitivity Analysis. Implementation of either a low or high case workload for the stockpile management alternatives would not affect biological resources at LANL.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility

Terrestrial Resources. The proposed NIF would be located within TA-58, an undeveloped area containing ponderosa pine. Construction of new facilities would result in the disturbance of approximately 4 ha (10 acres) of habitat. This would cause a fragmentation of the wooded habitat present on the site. Proper erosion and sediment control measures would reduce the potential for disturbance of habitat adjacent to the construction area. During construction, animal species within the disturbed area would be either destroyed or displaced depending upon whether they were able to move from the area.

During construction and operation, fencing around the proposed NIF could cause a localized constraint on the movement of the resident elk herd in the area of the site. Wildlife may also be disturbed by the increased level of human activity associated with the project.

Wetlands. Construction and operation of the proposed NIF is not expected to affect wetlands since this resource is not located on or near the proposed site.

Aquatic Resources. Construction and operation of the proposed NIF is not expected to affect aquatic resources since this resource is not located on or near the proposed site.

Threatened and Endangered Species. The construction of the proposed NIF at LANL would disturb a small amount of habitat suitable for several special status species which potentially exist onsite. If present, less mobile species such as the New Mexican meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus) and plant species could be lost during construction. Construction could also disturb potential foraging or nesting habitat for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), gray vireo (Vireo vicinior) , southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonox traillii extimus) , and spotted bat (Euderma maculata) . Some species such as the spotted owl may be further disturbed by the increased level of human activity (i.e., noise and lighting) associated with the project. Informal consultation under the Endangered Species Act may be necessary regarding the Mexican spotted owl.

Proposed Atlas Facility. The proposed Atlas Facility would be located at TA-35, located near the center of Pajarito Mesa, which is immediately north and east of Pajarito Canyon. The facility would be placed in existing TA-35 buildings, with the exception of a limited number of associated structures (e.g., storage tanks and a concrete pad), which would be constructed adjacent to existing buildings. No natural habitat would be disturbed and runoff volumes would not change appreciably from present levels; thus, impacts to biotic resources from construction and operation of the proposed Atlas Facility would not be expected.

Potential Mitigation Measures. Limiting the area to be disturbed, revegetating with native species, and implementing a soil erosion and sediment control plan would help to lessen short- and long-term impacts to terrestrial species and habitats. Disturbance to wildlife living in areas adjacent to new facilities may be minimized by preventing workers from entering undisturbed areas. It may be necessary to survey the site for the nests of migratory birds prior to construction and to avoid clearing operations during the breeding season. If any threatened or endangered species exist on the site, specific mitigation measures would be developed in conjunction with the USFWS.

4.6.3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

For the discussion of impacts, the term cultural resources includes prehistoric, historic, and Native American resources. Cultural and paleontological resources may be affected directly through ground disturbance, building modification, visual intrusion of the project to the historic setting or environmental context of historic sites, visual and audio intrusions to Native American resources, reduced access to traditional use areas, and unauthorized artifact collecting and vandalism. Cultural resources surveys have been conducted in portions of the involved TAs. Some NRHP-eligible prehistoric and historic resources may be affected by the proposed actions. Site-specific surveys and evaluations would be conducted in conjunction with the National Historic Preservation Act and tiered NEPA documents. No impacts to Native American resources are anticipated. Geological strata at LANL are not known to be fossiliferous.

No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue existing and planned missions at LANL as described in section 3.2.6. Any impacts to cultural or paleontological resources would be independent of and unaffected by the proposed action.

Management Alternatives

Pit Fabrication. Pit fabrication and intrusive modification pit reuse would necessitate reconfiguring and upgrading existing facilities within TAs -3, -8, -35, -50, -54, and -55. A nominal area would be required for equipment staging, material laydown, and parking during the modification of the facilities. All of TA-35 has been surveyed, and no cultural resources were identified. Portions of TAs -3, -8, -50, -54, and -55 have been surveyed and contain NRHP-eligible prehistoric and/or historic resources. Additional prehistoric and historic resources may exist on unsurveyed portions of the involved TAs. NRHP-eligible resources would be identified through project-specific inventories and evaluations, and any project-related effects would be addressed in tiered NEPA documentation. Impacts to Native American resources are not expected as a result of the alternative but would be identified through consultation with the potentially affected tribes. None of the geological formations at LANL are known to be fossiliferous.

Secondary and Case Fabrication. Replacing secondary and case fabrication would use existing facilities within the boundaries of TAs -3, -8, -50, -54, and -55. Some of these buildings would need modifications. A nominal area within existing buildings and developed areas would be required for equipment staging, material laydown, and parking during the facilities modification. Portions of each of the involved TAs have been surveyed and contain NRHP-eligible prehistoric and/or historic resources. Some additional NRHP-eligible sites may exist in unsurveyed portions of the involved TAs. Some prehistoric and historic resources may be affected by the proposed action. NRHP-eligible resources would be identified through project-specific surveys, inventories, and evaluations, and any project-related effects would be addressed in tiered NEPA documentation. Impacts to Native American resources are not expected but would be identified through consultation with potentially affected tribes. None of the geological formations at LANL are known to be fossiliferous.

High Explosives Fabrication. HE fabrication would take place in TAs -9, -16, -28, and -37. Only minimal new equipment is needed; no facility construction or modification is necessary to conduct the HE fabrication mission at LANL. No impacts to cultural or paleontological resources are anticipated. Sharing this mission with LLNL would have no impact on cultural and paleontological resources at LANL.

Nonnuclear Fabrication. Nonnuclear fabrication would use existing facilities within TAs -3, -16, -22, and -35. Additional equipment and building modifications would be necessary. These modifications largely involve electrical upgrades, and no ground disturbance is expected. Impacts to prehistoric, Native American, or paleontological resources are not anticipated. Some of the facilities to be modified under this alternative have been declared eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Any project-related effects to historic resources would be addressed in tiered NEPA and National Historic Preservation Act documentation.

Sensitivity Analysis. The high and low case scenarios for the proposed stockpile management alternatives at LANL would have the same impacts to cultural and paleontological resources as the base case production facilities.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility. Surveys indicate that no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites or structures exist on the proposed NIF location in TA-58. Paleontological remains are unlikely to exist in the proposed location because the Pajarito Plateau, comprised of Pleistocene volcanic tuffs and the Bandelier Formation, does not contain fossiliferous deposits. No Native American resources have been identified to date in the proposed location but some may be identified through consultation with the potentially affected tribes.

Proposed Atlas Facility. Existing buildings in TA-35 would be renovated to implement the proposed Atlas Facility. Some additional land would be required for the placement of concrete pads, storage tanks, and transportable office and diagnostic space. All of TA-35 has been surveyed for cultural resources and none were identified. All of the involved buildings were constructed in either 1980 or 1990 (appendix K) and are not NRHP eligible. No impacts to Native American or paleontological resources are expected.

Potential Mitigation Measures. If NRHP-eligible sites cannot be avoided though project design or siting, and the facility would cause adverse impacts, then a Memorandum of Agreement would need to be negotiated among DOE, the New Mexico SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The Memorandum of Agreement would formalize mitigation measures agreed to by these consulting parties. Mitigation measures could include describing and implementing intensive inventory and evaluation studies, data recovery plans, site treatments, and monitoring programs. The appropriate level of data recovery for mitigation would be determined through consultation with the New Mexico SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act . Mitigation measures for specific NRHP-eligible sites would be identified during tiered NEPA documentation.

If Native American resources could not be avoided through project design or siting, then acceptable mitigation measures to reduce project impacts on them would be determined in consultation with the affected Native American groups. In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, such mitigations may include, but would not be limited to, appropriately relocating human remains, planting vegetation screens to reduce visual or noise intrusion, increasing access to traditional use areas during operation, or transplanting or harvesting important Native American plant resources.

4.6.3.8 Socioeconomics

No Action. Under No Action, the existing missions at LANL as described in section 3.2.6 would continue with no new employment or in-migration of workers. Projections for regional economy and employment rates, population and housing changes, and public finance characteristics are presented in appendix D.

By 2002, the DAHRT Facility would be operational at LANL. A total of 80 jobs would be generated as a result of operation of this facility. This increase in workers has been considered in the No Action analysis for LANL.

Regional Economy and Employment. Total employment in the regional economic area is projected to grow slightly less than 2 percent annually between 1995 and 2000, reaching approximately 122,700 in the latter year. Long-range projections show employment growth averaging slightly more than 1 percent annually between 1995 and 2000 and then slowing to less than 1 percent between 2021 and 2030, reaching approximately 164,400 persons. Site employment at LANL is expected to total 6,546 in 2005. The unemployment rate in the regional economic area was 6.2 percent in 1994 and is expected to remain at this level into the near future. Per capita income is projected to increase from approximately $18,314 in 1995 to $26,801 in 2030.

Population and Housing. Annual ROI county and city population and housing growth is projected to be less than 2 percent over the period 1995 to 2005 and then is expected to slow to about 1 percent in the period 2006 to 2030. Annual increases between 2006 and 2030 are expected to be a little more than 1 percent. Population in the ROI is projected to increase from 167,400 in 1995 to 245,100 by 2030. The total number of housing units in the ROI is projected to increase from 70,100 in 1995 to 102,700 in 2030.

Public Finance. Between 2000 and 2005, all ROI county, city, and school district total revenues are projected to increase at an annual average of less than 1.6 percent. Total expenditures are projected to increase at an annual average of less than 1.5 percent during the same period. These rates of increase should continue until 2030.

Management Alternatives

Pit Fabrication

Regional Economy and Employment. Modification-related activities for the Pit Fabrication Facility would require 138 direct workers during the peak construction year and would generate approximately an additional 90 indirect jobs in the regional economic area. As a result of the modification activities, total employment for the LANL regional economic area would increase by much less than 1 percent. This increase would reduce the unemployment rate from 6.2 percent under the No Action alternative to approximately 6 percent. Per capita income for the LANL regional economic area would increase very slightly over No Action projections.

Operation employment at LANL would begin phasing in as the modification phase nears completion. Operation of the facility in the base case surge mode would generate 260 new direct jobs, but would generate no indirect jobs because there are no closely related industries in the regional economic area. As a result of the operation of the facility, total employment for the LANL regional economic area would increase by much less than 1 percent. This increase would reduce regional unemployment from the 6.2 percent No Action estimate to approximately 6.0 percent. Per capita income for the LANL regional economic area would increase by much less than 1 percent over No Action projections. Changes in employment and per capita income resulting from the operation of the Pit Fabrication Facility are shown in figure 4.6.3.8-1.

Population and Housing. Population in the LANL ROI during peak construction would not increase over No Action projections. Available workers in the regional economic area and ROI would be sufficient to fill all of the direct and indirect jobs generated by the modification activities for the facility.

There would not be enough available workers to fill all of the direct operation jobs. Approximately 20 workers would in-migrate to fill positions at the Pit Fabrication Facility. The ROI population over No Action for full operation at LANL is shown in figure 4.6.3.8-2. Vacant housing in the ROI is sufficient to house the in-migrating workers and their families.

Public Finance. Modification of the Pit Fabrication Facility would not require in-migrating workers. Therefore, changes to local finances compared to No Action projections would be attributed to income increases and would be negligible.

Changes in revenues and expenditures compared to No Action projections due to operation of the facility at LANL are shown in figure 4.6.3.8-3. In 2005 the percent increase in total ROI revenues and expenditures over No Action projections would be negligible with the exception of the Los Alamos school district which would be expected to experience increases of approximately 1 percent.

Secondary and Case Fabrication

Regional Economy and Employment. Modification-related activities for the Secondary and Case Fabrication Facility would generate a total of 55 direct jobs during the peak construction year and would generate an additional 36 indirect jobs in the regional economic area. As a result of the modification activities, total employment for the LANL regional economic area would increase by less than 1 percent. This increase would reduce regional unemployment from the 6.2 percent No Action estimate to approximately 6.1 percent. Per capita income for the LANL regional economic area would increase very slightly over No Action projections as a result of modification activities for the Secondary and Case Fabrication Facility.

Facility operation-related employment at LANL would begin phasing in as the modification phase nears completion. Operation of the facility in the base case surge mode would require 321 new direct workers but would generate few additional indirect jobs in the regional economic area because there are no closely related industries in the regional economic area. As a result of the operation of the facility, total employment for the LANL regional economic area would increase by less than 1 percent. This increase would reduce regional unemployment from the 6.2 percent No Action estimates to approximately 6.0 percent. Per capita income for the LANL regional economic area would increase by less than 1 percent over No Action projections. Changes in employment and per capita income resulting from the operation of the Secondary and Case Fabrication Facility are shown in figure 4.6.3.8-1.

Population and Housing. Population in the LANL ROI during construction or operation of the Secondary and Case Fabrication Facility would not increase over No Action projections. Available workers in the regional economic area and ROI would be sufficient to fill all of the jobs generated by construction and operation of the facility.

Public Finance. Construction and operation of the Secondary and Case Fabrication Facility would not require in-migrating workers. Therefore, changes to local finances compared to No Action projections would be due to income increases and would be negligible.

High Explosives Fabrication

Regional Economy and Employment. Modification-related activities for the facility would require 46 direct workers during the peak construction year and would generate an additional 30 indirect jobs in the regional economic area. As a result of the modification activities, total employment for the LANL regional economic area would increase by less than 1 percent. Unemployment would decrease from the 6.2 percent No Action estimates to approximately 6.1 percent. Per capita income for the LANL regional economic area would increase very slightly over No Action projections as a result of modification activities for the HE Facility.

Facility operation-related employment at LANL would begin phasing in as the modification phase nears completion. Operation of the facility in the base case surge mode would require 67 new direct workers but would generate only a few indirect jobs because there are no closely related industries in the regional economic area. As a result of the operation of the HE Facility, total employment for the LANL regional economic area would increase by much less than 1 percent. The No Action regional unemployment of 6.2 percent would decrease to 6.1 percent. Per capita income for the LANL regional economic area would increase slightly over No Action projections. Changes in employment and per capita income resulting from the operation of the HE Facility are shown in figure 4.6.3.8-1.

Population and Housing. Population in the LANL ROI during peak construction would not increase over No Action projections. Available workers in the regional economic area and ROI would be sufficient to fill all of the direct and indirect jobs generated by construction of the HE Facility.

There would not be enough available workers in the regional economic area and ROI to fill all of the jobs generated by operation of the facility. Approximately 10 additional workers would have to in-migrate into the ROI to fill the new direct jobs. Population in the LANL ROI during full operation would increase by approximately 30 people over No Action projections. The ROI population over No Action for full operation at LANL is shown in figure 4.6.3.8-2. No additional housing units would be needed to meet such a small population increase.

Public Finance. Modification of the HE Facility would not require in-migrating workers. Therefore, changes to local finances compared to No Action projections would be due to income increases and would be negligible.

Changes in revenues and expenditures compared to No Action projections due to operation of the HE Facility at LANL are shown in figure 4.6.3.8-4. In 2005, the percent increase in total ROI revenues and expenditures over No Action projections would be negligible.

Nonnuclear Fabrication

Regional Economy and Employment. Modification-related activities for the facility would require a total of six workers during the peak construction year and would generate an additional four indirect jobs in the regional economic area. As a result of the modification activities, total employment and per capita income would not noticeably increase. The unemployment rate would remain unchanged.

Facility operation-related employment at LANL would begin phasing in as the modification phase nears completion. Operation of the facility in the base case surge mode would require 194 new direct workers and would generate approximately 46 indirect jobs in the regional economic area. As a result of the operation of the facility, total employment for the LANL regional economic area would increase by less than 1 percent. Unemployment would decrease from 6.2 percent under the No Action alternative to 6.0 percent. Per capita income for the LANL regional economic area would increase by less than 1 percent over No Action projections. Changes in employment and per capita income resulting from the operation of the Nonnuclear Fabrication Facility are shown in figure 4.6.3.8-1.

Population and Housing. Population in the LANL ROI during peak construction and full operation would not increase over No Action projections. There would be enough workers available in the regional economic area and ROI to fill all of the direct and indirect jobs generated by the modification and operation of the Nonnuclear Fabrication Facility.

Public Finance. Construction and operation of the Nonnuclear Fabrication Facility would not require in-migrating workers. Therefore, changes to local finances compared to No Action projections would be due to income increases and would be negligible.

Partial Nonnuclear Fabrication. LANL may not receive the entire nonnuclear mission. Reservoirs and/or plastics may be excluded from the mission. If this occurs, the full operation employment increment would range from 57 to 232 direct jobs. For these options, in-migration would not be required. Socioeconomic effects on regional economy, employment, population, and housing would be less than for the full nonnuclear mission. These changes would be minimal.

Sensitivity Analysis . There would be no change in the number of construction workers required to complete any of the facilities for LANL (pit manufacturing, secondary and case fabrication, HE or nonnuclear fabrication) for either the high or low case. Operation of any of the facilities for the high case level would require fewer workers than would the base case surge operation. For the low case, worker requirements would decrease further causing slightly smaller increases in regional economy, population and housing, and public finance than occurred in either the base case surge or high case levels. These changes would be negligible.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility. The following is a summary of the socioeconomic effects of construction of the proposed NIF at LANL. See appendix I for a more detailed, project-specific discussion.

Regional Economy and Employment. Construction of NIF would require 270 construction workers during the peak year of construction and would generate approximately 860 additional indirect jobs in the regional economic area. Employment for operation would begin phasing in as the construction phase nears completion. Operation of the facility would require 330 direct workers and would generate 270 additional indirect jobs in the regional economic area. Construction and operation of NIF would have only minimal affects on the regional economy and employment.

Population and Housing. Both construction and operation of the facility would require workers and their families to in-migrate to the ROI. This in-migration would cause a slight increase in the population of the ROI. Vacant housing in the ROI is sufficient to handle these increases.

Public Finance. Both revenues and expenditures would increase as a result of the construction and operation of NIF. Increases due to construction would peak in 1998 and then decline as construction nears completion in 2002. Increases due to operation of the facility would peak in 2003 and continue through the duration of NIF operations.

Proposed Atlas Facility. The Atlas Facility at LANL would not have any identified socioeconomic impact over No Action.

Combined Program Impacts. If the pit fabrication, secondary and case fabrication, HE, and nonnuclear fabrication missions and the NIF were all located at LANL, the resulting benefits to the regional economy would be greater than from any one mission. Increases in total employment would be about 1 percent while per capita income would increase less than 1 percent. There would be sufficient available labor in the projected labor force to fill any construction-related employment requirements, but not enough to fill operation-related employment requirements. Approximately 1,349 people (workers and their families) would in-migrate into the LANL ROI to fill the available operation jobs. Although there would be a small population increase in the ROI, vacant housing would not be sufficient to house all in-migrating workers during full operation. Approximately 250 houses would need to be constructed over the No Action estimates. However, based on past building rates, new construction would be able to meet this demand. As shown in figure 4.6.3.8-5, the increase in ROI total revenues and expenditures over No Action projections would be approximately 0.7 and 0.6 percent, respectively. The Los Alamos School District would experience the greatest revenue and expenditure increases at approximately 3.1 percent.

Potential Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are anticipated for the stockpile stewardship and management alternatives at LANL.

4.6.3.9 Radiation and Hazardous Chemical Environment

This section describes the radiological and hazardous chemical releases and their associated impacts which could result from No Action and proposed alternatives at LANL. Within this section, impacts resulting from the base case scenario are quantitatively discussed, and a sensitivity analysis of the high and low case scenarios is qualitatively discussed.

Summaries of the prevailing radiological impacts at LANL to the public and to workers associated with normal operation are presented in tables 4.6.3.9-1 and 4.6.3.9-2, respectively; accident radiological impacts are presented in figure 4.6.3.9-1 and tables 4.6.3.9-3 through 4.6.3.9-7. The impact assessment methodology is described in section 4.1.9, and further supplementary methodological information is presented in appendixes E and F.

Normal Operation There would be no radiological releases during the construction or modification of any facilities to support the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program. However, limited hazardous chemical releases (e.g., small spills of diesel fuel from equipment refueling) may occur due to construction activities for the base case scenario and may increase slightly for the high case scenario. The concentration of these releases is expected to be well within the regulated exposure limits and would not result in any adverse health effects.

Water from processes containing hazardous chemicals is not discharged directly into surface water or groundwater that serves as potable water. Process water that may contain hazardous chemicals is treated before discharge. Furthermore, discharges of wastewater through NPDES-permitted outfalls which can be attributed to the activities associated with normal operations and operations of the stockpile stewardship and management alternatives at LANL are expected to be below NPDES limits. Water quality would not be adversely affected. Thus, the primary pathway considered for the public and the onsite worker is the air pathway.

For normal operation at LANL, all possible hazardous chemicals were examined for further analysis based on their toxicity, concentration, and frequency of use. The HI is a summation of the HQ for all chemicals. The HQ is the value used as an assessment of noncancer toxic effects of chemicals (e.g., kidney or liver dysfunction). It is independent of cancer risk, which is calculated only for those chemicals identified as carcinogens. The HI was calculated for the No Action chemicals and all alternative chemicals proposed to be added (the increment) at the site to yield cumulative levels for the site. An HI of 1.0 indicates that all noncancer exposure values meet OSHA standards; if the cancer risk is 1x10-6 (the default value, not a regulatory standard), no further analysis is indicated. A cancer risk of 1x10-6 is considered acceptable by EPA (40 CFR 300.430) because this incidence of cancers cannot be distinguished from the cancer risk for an individual member of the population. Information pertaining to OSHA-regulated exposure limits and toxicity profiles for all hazardous chemicals described in this PEIS may be found in the Chemical Health Effects Technical Reference (TTI 1996b).

No Action

Radiological Impacts. Radiological impacts to the public resulting from the No Action alternative are presented in table 4.6.3.9-1. These impacts are representative of the aggregated total which is estimated to exist from all future baseline operational contributions (including pit fabrication R&D). Total impacts are provided to compare with applicable regulations governing total site operations. To place doses to the public from the No Action alternative into perspective, comparisons are made to natural background radiation. As shown in table 4.6.3.9-1, the total dose to the maximally exposed member of the public from annual total site operations is within radiological limits and would be 6.5 mrem for the No Action alternative. The annual population dose within 80 km (50 mi) in 2030 would be 2.7 person-rem.

Total site doses to onsite workers from normal operation for the No Action alternative are presented in table 4.6.3.9-2. The estimated annual dose to the entire facility workforce for this alternative would be 196 person-rem. The presented noninvolved worker impacts were not modeled due to the unavailability of certain site-specific information.

Potential radiological impacts to the public and workers in tables 4.6.3.9-1 and 4.6.3.9-2 include the addition of the phased containment option (preferred alternative) representing the DARHT Facility and the phaseout of the PHERMEX Facility at LANL. Based on the radiological impacts associated with normal operation under the No Action alternative, all resulting doses would be within radiological limits and are well below levels of natural background radiation. The associated risks of adverse health effects to the public and to workers would be small.

Hazardous Chemical Impacts. Hazardous chemical impacts to the public resulting from normal operation under No Action at LANL are presented below. Analyses to support the values presented in this section are provided in appendix table E.3.4-13. This PEIS does not purport to provide the level of detail needed to go beyond a conservative screening process for hazardous chemicals. As such, the analysis in this PEIS for the No Action alternative should not be relied upon as a basis for judging the sites as having a hazardous health concern of alternatives among sites. The model used to calculate HI and cancer risk in this PEIS only establishes a baseline for comparison of alternatives among sites. The baseline is then used to determine the extent to which each alternative adds or subtracts from the No Action HI and cancer risk to the public at each site.

The HI for the maximally exposed individual of the public at LANL resulting from normal operation under the No Action alternative would be 3.01x10^-2 , and the cancer risk would be 5.15x10^-6 . The HI for the onsite worker would be 4.65x10^-2 and the cancer risk would be 1.54x10^-4 . The HIs for the public and onsite worker are within acceptable health levels.

Cancer risks to the public and to the onsite worker exceed the EPA default value as a result of the emissions of methylene chloride; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; and trichloroethylene associated with operations under the No Action alternative at LANL.

Mitigation measures such as substituting less toxic solvents or modifying processes are proposed to reduce or eliminate the emissions of all hazardous chemicals due to operations under the No Action alternative with particular attention to methylene chloride; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; and trichloroethylene.

Table 4.6.3.9-1.-- Potential Radiological Impacts to the Public Resulting from Normal Operation of Stockpile Stewardship and Management Alternatives at Los Alamos National Laboratory

Table 4.6.3.9-2.-- Potential Radiological Impacts to Workers Resulting from Normal Operation of Stockpile Stewardship and Management Alternatives at Los Alamos National Laboratory

Management Alternatives

Pit Fabrication

Radiological Impacts. Radiological impacts to the public resulting from the pit fabrication alternative are presented in table 4.6.3.9-1. These impacts are representative of the aggregate total which is estimated to exist from all future baseline operational LANL contributions and from three-shift base case operations for pit fabrication at the site. Total impacts are provided to compare with applicable regulations governing total site operations. To place doses to the public from this alternative into perspective, comparisons are made to natural background radiation. As shown in table 4.6.3.9-1, the total dose to the maximally exposed member of the public from annual total site operations is within radiological limits and would be 6.5 mrem for this alternative. The annual population dose within 80 km (50 mi) in 2030 would be 2.7 person-rem. The impacts incurred from three-shift base case operations are negligible when compared to those existing for the normal baseline site operations (see table 4.6.3.9-1).

Total site doses to onsite workers from normal operation for the pit fabrication mission are presented in table 4.6.3.9-2. The average annual dose to involved workers for this alternative would be 380 mrem. The dose to the entire facility workforce (involved workforce) would be 55.6 person-rem. As stated in the methodology section 4.1.9, all worker doses were referenced either from alternative-specific working group data reports or from the Radiation Exposures for DOE and DOE Contractor Employees 1992 Database which reports doses for similar types of operations. The presented noninvolved worker impacts were not modeled due to the unavailability of certain site-specific information. There may also be small risks to construction workers who are involved with tasks that are in close proximity to potentially contaminated areas.

Hazardous Chemical Impacts. Hazardous chemical impacts for the public and for the onsite worker resulting from normal operation of the pit fabrication alternative at LANL are presented below. The pit fabrication alternative includes intrusive and nonintrusive modification pit reuse. The HI and cancer risk would remain constant over 25 years of operation provided exposures remain the same. Analyses to support the values presented in this section are provided in appendix table E.3.4-14.

The incremental HI for the maximally exposed member of the public would be 2.10x10^-4 , and the incremental cancer risk would be zero as a result of operation of the pit fabrication mission in the year 2005. The incremental HI for the onsite worker would be 1.75x10^-4 , and the incremental cancer risk would be zero as a result of operation of the pit fabrication mission in 2005.

The total site operation and the increment associated with the pit fabrication alternative would result in HIs for the public (0.030) and onsite worker (0.047) that are within acceptable health levels. The cancer risks to the public (5.15x10^-6) and to the onsite worker (1.54x10^-4) slightly exceed the EPA default value of 1x10^-6 .

Cancer risks to the public and to the onsite worker exceed the EPA default value as a result of the No Action emissions of chloroform; methylene chloride; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; and trichloroethylene. Incremental emissions due to the pit fabrication mission cause only a minimal increase in the HI for the public and onsite worker and, therefore, this alternative is not expected to increase the cancer risk for the public and the onsite worker.

Secondary and Case Fabrication

Radiological Impacts. Radiological impacts for the public resulting from the secondary and case fabrication alternative are presented in table 4.6.3.9-1. These impacts are representative of the aggregate total which is estimated to exist from all future baseline operational LANL contributions and from three-shift base case operation for secondary and case fabrication at the site. Total impacts are provided to compare with applicable regulations governing total site operations. To place doses for the public from this alternative into perspective, comparisons are made to natural background radiation. As shown in table 4.6.3.9-1, the total dose to the maximally exposed member of the public from annual total site operations is within radiological limits and would be 6.7 mrem for this alternative. The annual population dose within 80 km (50 mi) in 2030 would be 3.2 person-rem. The impacts incurred from three-shift base case operations are small when compared to those existing for the normal baseline site operations (see No Action column in table 4.6.3.9-1).

Total site doses to onsite workers from normal operation for the secondary and case fabrication mission are presented in table 4.6.3.9-2. The average annual dose to involved workers for this alternative would be 2.2 mrem. The dose to the entire facility workforce (involved workforce) would be 0.33 person-rem. As stated in the methodology section 4.1.9, all worker doses were referenced from the Radiation Exposures for DOE and DOE Contractor Employees 1992 Database which reports doses for similar types of operations. The presented noninvolved worker impacts were not modeled due to the unavailability of certain site-specific information. There may also be small risks to construction workers who are involved with tasks that are in close proximity to potentially contaminated areas.

Hazardous Chemical Impacts. Hazardous chemical impacts for the public and for the onsite worker resulting from the normal operation of the secondary and case fabrication alternative at LANL are presented below. The HI and cancer risk would remain constant over 25 years of operation provided exposures remain the same. Analyses to support the values presented in this section are provided in appendix table E.3.4-15.

The incremental HI for the maximally exposed member of the public would be 9.43x10-4 and the incremental cancer risk would be zero as a result of operation of the secondary and case fabrication mission in 2005. The incremental HI for the onsite worker would be 7.89x10-4 and the incremental cancer risk would be zero as a result of operation of the secondary and case fabrication mission in 2005.

Total site operations of the secondary and case fabrication mission would result in HIs (HI is applicable only to noncarcinogenic risks) for the public (0.031) and the onsite worker (0.047) that are within acceptable health levels. The cancer risks for the public (5.15x10^-6) and the onsite worker (1.54x10^-4) slightly exceed the EPA default value of 1x10-6using extremely conservative stack assumptions (i.e., a stack flow of 0.1 ft/sec). Using the same emissions values and average LANL stack flow, the cancer risk values drop by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude (i.e., 100 to 1,000 times lower).

Cancer risks for the public and for the onsite worker exceed the EPA default value as a result of the No Action emissions of methylene chloride; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; and trichloroethylene. When average LANL stack flows are used, the cancer risk for the public and the onsite worker do not exceed the default value for any alternative. Incremental emissions due to the secondary and case fabrication mission cause only a minimal increase in HI (noncarcinogenic risks) for the public and onsite worker and no additional cancer risk for the public and the onsite worker.

High Explosives Fabrication

Radiological Impacts. There are no radiological impacts associated with this alternative.

Hazardous Chemical Impacts. Hazardous chemical impacts for the public and for the onsite worker resulting from normal operation of the HE fabrication alternative at LANL are presented below. The HI and cancer risk would remain constant over 25 years of operation provided exposures remain the same. Analyses to support the values presented in this section are provided in appendix table E.3.4-16.

The incremental HI for the maximally exposed individual of the public would be 3.99x10-3 and the incremental cancer risk would be zero as a result of operation of the HE fabrication mission in 2005. The incremental HI for the onsite worker would be 3.33x10^-3 and the incremental cancer risk would be zero as a result of operation of the HE fabrication mission in 2005.

Total site operations of the HE fabrication mission would result in HIs for the public (0.034) and the onsite worker (0.05) that are within acceptable health levels. The cancer risks for the public (5.15x10^-6) and the onsite worker (1.54x10^-4) slightly exceed the EPA default value of 1x10-6. Incremental emissions due to the HE fabrication mission cause only a minimal increase in HI for the public and onsite worker and no additional cancer risk for the public and the onsite worker.

Cancer risks for the public and for the onsite worker exceed the EPA default value as a result of the No Action emissions of chloroform, methylene chloride; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; and trichloroethylene.

Sharing of the HE Fabrication alternative mission with LLNL would be expected to reduce emissions of hazardous chemicals by up to 50 percent. Therefore, HI and cancer risk impacts may be reduced up to 50 percent as a result of HE fabrication mission sharing with LLNL. This would bring the cancer risk to an acceptable level of 1x10-6.

Nonnuclear Fabrication

Radiological Impacts. There are no radiological impacts associated with this alternative.

Hazardous Chemical Impacts. Hazardous chemical impacts for the public and for the onsite worker resulting from normal operation of the nonnuclear fabrication alternative at LANL are presented below. The nonnuclear fabrication alternative includes detonators and the option of adding reservoirs, plastics, or both to this mission. The HI and cancer risk would remain constant over 25 years of operation provided exposures remain the same. Analyses to support the values presented in this section are provided in appendix table E.3.4-17.

The incremental HI to the maximally exposed member of the public would be 2.61x10^-5 and the incremental cancer risk would be zero as a result of operation of the nonnuclear fabrication mission in 2005. The incremental HI for the onsite worker would be 3.15x10^-6, and the incremental cancer risk would be zero as a result of operation of the nonnuclear fabrication mission in 2005.

Total site operations and the incremental effect of the nonnuclear fabrication mission would result in HIs for the public (0.03) and the onsite worker (0.047) that are within acceptable health levels. The cancer risks for the public (5.15x10^-6) and the onsite worker (1.54x10^-4) slightly exceed the EPA default value of 1x10-6.

Cancer risks for the public and for the onsite worker exceed the EPA default value due to the No Action emissions of chloroform methylene chloride; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; and trichloroethylene. Incremental emissions due to the nonnuclear fabrication mission cause only a minimal increase in HI for the public and onsite worker and no additional cancer risk for the public and the onsite worker.

The emissions of hazardous chemicals may not increase, and may slightly decrease if the options of not including reservoirs, plastics, or both in the nonnuclear fabrication alternative is implemented. Therefore, it is not expected that there would be any increase in HI or cancer risk for the public or for the onsite worker by not including reservoirs, plastics, or both in the nonnuclear fabrication alternative at LANL.

Sensitivity Analysis. Radiological impacts may be subject to certain degrees of variance resulting from either high or low case operations. For the high case scenario, impacts to both the public and worker would be similar to the three-shift base case operations. For the low-case scenario, impacts to the total workforce would be expected to fall within the increment (range) projected between that of No Action and the pit fabrication alternative (less than 55.6 person-rem/year increase to the total site workforce). Impacts for the public would be expected to fall within the increment (range) projected between that of No Action and the secondary and case fabrication alternative (less than 0.2 mrem/year to the maximally exposed individual, and less than 0.5 person-rem/year for the population).

Based on the radiological impacts associated with normal operation of this alternative, all resulting doses would be within radiological limits and are well below levels of natural background radiation. The associated risks of adverse health effects for the public and to workers would be small.

Operations under the low case scenario for pit, secondary and case, HE, and nonnuclear fabrication are not expected to increase the emissions of hazardous chemicals at LANL. Since the HIs are well within the acceptable health limits, there are no adverse HI impacts for the public and the onsite worker expected. The low case scenario probably would not contribute to the expected adverse effects of cancer risk for the public and onsite worker.

Operations under the high case scenario for pit and secondary and case fabrication may increase the emissions of hazardous chemicals at LANL. Since the HIs are well within the acceptable health limits, there are no expected adverse HI impacts for the public and the onsite worker. The high case scenario probably would also not increase cancer risk for the public and onsite worker above the EPA default value.

Operations under the high case scenario for HE fabrication may result in up to a two-fold increase in the emissions of hazardous chemicals at LANL. Since the HIs are well within the acceptable health limits, no adverse HI impacts for the public and the onsite worker are expected. The high case scenario probably would not increase the cancer risk for the public and onsite worker above the EPA default value.

Operations under the high case scenario for nonnuclear fabrication may result in up to a three-fold increase in the emissions of hazardous chemicals at LANL. Since the HIs are well within the acceptable health limits, no adverse HI impacts for the public and the onsite worker are expected. The high case scenario may, however, contribute to the adverse effects of cancer risk for the public and onsite worker unless mitigation steps are implemented.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility

Radiological Impacts. Radiological impacts for the public resulting from normal operation of the proposed NIF for the enhanced option scenario are presented in table 4.6.3.9-1. These impacts are representative of the aggregate total which is estimated to exist from all future baseline operational LANL contributions and from enhanced option operations of the proposed NIF at the site. Total impacts are provided to compare with applicable regulations governing total site operations. To place doses for the public from this alternative into perspective, comparisons are made to natural background radiation. As shown in table 4.6.3.9-1, the total dose to the maximally exposed member of the public from annual total site operations is within radiological limits and would be 6.5 mrem for this alternative. The annual population dose within 80 km (50 mi) in 2030 would be 2.8 person-rem. The impacts incurred from proposed NIF operations are small when compared to those existing for the normal baseline site operations (see No Action column in table 4.6.3.9-1).

Total site doses to onsite workers from normal operation for the proposed NIF are presented in table 4.6.3.9-2. The average annual dose to involved workers for this alternative would be 30 mrem. The dose to the entire facility workforce (involved workforce) would be 8.0 person-rem. The presented noninvolved worker impacts were not modeled due to the unavailability of certain site-specific information. There may also be small risks to construction workers who are involved with tasks that are in close proximity to potentially contaminated areas.

Based on the radiological impacts associated with normal operation of this alternative, all resulting doses would be within radiological limits and are well below levels of natural background radiation. The associated risks of adverse health effects for the public and to workers would be small.

Hazardous Chemical Impacts. No hazardous chemical impacts are expected from operation of the NIF (see appendix I). Therefore, HIs and cancer risks for the public and onsite workers were not calculated nor assessed.

Proposed Atlas Facility

Radiological Impacts. There are no radiological impacts associated with this alternative. Total site doses and impacts characteristic of this alternative are equal to the No Action alternative.

Hazardous Chemical Impacts. Minimal hazardous chemical impacts are expected from operation of the Atlas Facility (see appendix K). Therefore, HIs and cancer risks for the public and onsite workers were not calculated nor assessed.

Combined Program Impacts

Radiological Impacts. Radiological impacts to the public and to workers from the simultaneous operation of all LANL site alternatives (both management and stewardship) would result in very small increases over the No Action or the largest individual alternative. All Program totals would be within radiological limits and are well below levels of natural background radiation. The associated risks of adverse health effects to the public and to workers would be small.

Combined Program impacts due to hazardous chemical emissions from operation of the No Action alternative and the incremental chemical emissions incurred by the management alternatives (pit fabrication, secondary and case fabrication, HE fabrication, and nonnuclear fabrication) would result in a cumulative HI for the public of 0.035 and a cumulative cancer risk of 5.15x10^-6. The cumulative HI for the onsite worker would be 0.051 and the cumulative cancer risk would be 1.54x10^-4.

The cumulative Program HIs (noncarcinogenic effects) for the public and the onsite worker are within acceptable health levels since the HIs do not exceed the value of 1. Concern for potential health effects is heightened when the HI exceeds 1. Cumulative cancer risks for the public and the onsite worker exceed the cancer risk default value of 1x10-6 under No Action when extremely conservative stack parameters are used. When average LANL stack flows are used, the cancer risk for the public and the onsite workers do not exceed this default value for any alternatives. The incremental chemical emissions due to operations associated with all of the management alternatives did not increase the cancer risks.

Potential Mitigation Measures.Radioactive airborne emissions to the general population and onsite exposures to workers could be reduced by implementing the latest technology for process and design improvements. For example, to reduce public exposure from emissions, improved building and work area control methods could be used to remove radioactivity from the releases to the environment. Similarly, the use of remote, automated and robotic production methods are examples of techniques that are being developed which would reduce worker exposure (see section 3.5).

Measures such as substituting less-toxic solvents or modifying processes are proposed to reduce or eliminate the emissions of all hazardous chemicals due to site operations, with particular attention to methylene chloride; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; and trichloroethylene.

Facility Accidents. The proposed actions have the potential for accidents that may impact the health and safety of workers and the public. The potential for and associated consequences of reasonably foreseeable accidents that have been evaluated are summarized in this section and described in more detail in appendix F. The methodology used in the assessment is described in