4.7.3 Environmental Impacts

4.7.3.1 Land Use

No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue current and planned activities at LLNL as described in section 3.2.7. No additional land-use impacts are anticipated at LLNL beyond the effects of existing and future activities that are independent of the proposed action.

Management Alternatives

Secondary and Case Fabrication. The secondary and case fabrication alternative at the Livermore Site would use existing facilities, equipment, and infrastructure to support production requirements for the secondary and case fabrication mission. Facilities for this proposed action would require approximately 21,739 m² (234,000 ft²) of floor space, and all operations would be carried out within those facilities. Additional land would not be used to implement the new mission. The proposed secondary and case fabrication activities would be compatible and consistent with existing operations, and LLNL land-use plans and policies. No land-use impacts are expected.

High Explosives Fabrication. The HE fabrication alternative at the Livermore Site would use existing facilities and infrastructure to support the HE feedstock, main charge, and component procurement and fabrication activities. Additional land would not be used to implement the mission. The proposed HE fabrication activities would be compatible and consistent with existing operation and LLNL land-use plans and policies. Land-use impacts are not expected.

Nonnuclear Fabrication. Nonnuclear fabrication and assembly activities for nonnuclear components would be incorporated into existing buildings with mission modification. Modification activities would be limited to upgrades within existing facilities. Additional land would not be used to implement the mission. The proposed nonnuclear fabrication activities would be compatible and consistent with existing operations and LLNL land-use plans and policies. Impacts to land-use are not expected.

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

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility . The proposed site for NIF would occupy an estimated 8.1 ha (20 acres) of vacant undeveloped land in the northeast corner of the Livermore Site. The site acreage would account for 11 percent of the land currently designated as available for development inside the Livermore Site boundaries. The project would be located in an area where similar types of research and experimentation activities occur. The proposed NIF would be compatible and consistent with LLNL land-use plans and policies. No impacts to land-use are expected.

Proposed Contained Firing Facility. The proposed CFF would be a modification to the existing B801 Flash X-Ray (FXR) Facility located at Site 300. Approximately 1.2 ha (3 acres) of hillside land adjacent to the present B801 complex would be disturbed during construction of the proposed CFF. The proposed action would be compatible and consistent with existing operations at Site 300 and LLNL land-use plans and policies. Construction and operation of CFF would not result in land-use impacts.

Combined Program Impacts

Livermore Site. Of the four stockpile stewardship and management alternatives proposed for the Livermore Site, existing facilities would be used for three of the alternatives. Additional land would not be used to implement these three missions. The proposed NIF would require clearing 8.1 ha (20 acres) of land for buildings, walkways, and buffer space. An additional 2 ha (4.9 acres) would be temporarily required for a construction laydown area. The total land-use impact from placing all potential Program alternatives at the Livermore Site would be the use of 8.1 ha (20 acres) of undeveloped land for the new NIF mission.

Site 300. Combined Program impacts would be limited to land-use impacts from construction and operation of CFF, which are expected to be negligible.

Potential Mitigation Measures . Additional mitigation measures are not anticipated.

4.7.3.2 Site Infrastructure

This section discusses site infrastructure at LLNL for No Action and the modifications needed for actions due to construction and operation of new stockpile stewardship and management facilities. A comparison of site infrastructure and facilities resources needs for No Action and the proposed alternatives is presented in table 4.7.3.2-1.

No Action. This alternative continues the LLNL missions described in section 3.2.7. As shown in table 4.7.3.2-1, the site infrastructure would continue to adequately supply facility requirements. There would be a 12-percent increase in petrochemical (oil) use and a 13-percent increase in natural gas use over current site requirements.

Management Alternatives

Secondary and Case Fabrication. The site infrastructure would require facility improvements to implement this alternative. Table 4.7.3.2-1 shows the total site requirements and the changes over No Action for electricity and fuel to support the secondary and case fabrication mission. Impacts to site energy infrastructure include a 108-percent increase in liquid fuel use and a 4-percent increase in electrical energy and natural gas use over No Action requirements.

High Explosives Fabrication. The site infrastructure would require slight facility improvements to implement this alternative. The changes in LLNL site infrastructure requirements are shown in table 4.7.3.2-1. Impacts to site infrastructure include a 67-percent increase in liquid fuel use over No Action requirements. No other impacts to site infrastructure are expected. This analysis assumes the entire mission is relocated to LLNL. If it is shared with LANL, the impact would be appropriately less.

Nonnuclear Fabrication. As shown in table 4.7.3.2-1, the site infrastructure requirement changes would be small to implement this alternative. Impacts to site infrastructure are not expected.

Sensitivity Analysis. No change in site infrastructure impacts are expected for the high and low production cases for the nonnuclear and HE fabrication alternatives. For secondary and case fabrication, facility upgrades and utility improvements would be required to support the high production case. No changes are expected to meet the low case production scenario.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility. Table 4.7.3.2-1 shows the energy requirement to support the proposed NIF at LLNL. The LLNL site infrastructure would require slight facility improvements to implement this alternative. Impacts to site infrastructure include a 9-percent increase in electrical energy use, a 33-percent increase in peak electrical load, and a 4-percent increase in natural gas use over No Action requirements. The electric power pool has sufficient capacity margins to accommodate the proposed NIF.

Proposed Contained Firing Facility. As shown in table 4.7.3.2-1, the site infrastructure would require slight facility improvements to implement this alternative. Impacts to site infrastructure include slight increases in electrical energy and liquid fuel use over No Action requirements.

Combined Program Impacts. If all applicable alternatives were to be located at LLNL, the combined impacts would exceed current site resources. The largest impact would be a 179-percent increase in liquid fuel use. Electrical peak load would increase by 40 percent with an associated increase in electrical energy use of 14 percent. Consumption of natural gas would increase by about 8 percent.

Table 4.7.3.2-1.--Site Infrastructure Requirements and Changes for Stockpile Stewardship and Management Alternatives at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

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

4.7.3.3 Air Quality

No Action. No Action air quality utilizes estimated air emissions data from operations at the Livermore Site and Site 300 in 2005 assuming continuation of current site missions to calculate pollutant concentrations at or beyond the Livermore Site and Site 300 boundaries. The emission rates for criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants for No Action are presented in appendix table B.3.7-1. Tables 4.7.3.3-1 and 4.7.3.3-2 present the No Action pollutant concentrations calculated from the 2005 emission rates for the Livermore Site and Site 300, respectively. In this table pollutant concentrations are compared with applicable Federal and state regulations and guidelines. Concentrations are expected to remain within these standards. Modeled estimates for the 1-hour nitrogen dioxide concentration at the Livermore Site, however, result in a concentration above the applicable standard.

Management Alternatives

Secondary and Case Fabrication. The secondary and case fabrication mission would generate criteria and toxic/hazardous emissions resulting from the 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 from secondary and case fabrication are presented in appendix table B.3.7-1. Table 4.7.3.3-1 presents the concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants resulting from No Action and those generated from operation of secondary and case fabrication. The resulting concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants are expected to be within Federal and state regulations and guidelines. Modeled estimates for 1-hour nitrogen dioxide concentration at the Livermore Site, however, are above the applicable standard.

Table 4.7.3.3-1.-- Estimated Concentrations of Pollutants from No Action and Stockpile Stewardship and Management Alternatives at the Livermore Site

Table 4.7.3.3-2.--Estimated Concentrations of Pollutants from No Action and Stockpile Stewardship and Management Alternatives at Site 300

High Explosives Fabrication. Gaseous emissions of criteria and toxic/hazardous air pollutants would be generated from the HE fabrication mission. 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 from HE fabrication are presented in appendix table B.3.7-1. Table 4.7.3.3-2 presents the concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants resulting from No Action and those generated from operation of the HE mission. The resulting concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants are expected to be within Federal and state regulations and guidelines.

Nonnuclear Fabrication. The primary source of emissions would be fugitive emissions of numerous small amounts of solvents from nonnuclear component fabrication processes. These solvents include acetone, isopropyl alcohol, methyl ethyl ketone, and toluene. Table 4.7.3.3-1 presents the concentrations of toxic/hazardous pollutants resulting from No Action and nonnuclear fabrication. Emission rates of toxic/hazardous pollutants for annual operation of nonnuclear fabrication are presented in appendix table B.3.7-1. Concentrations of pollutants resulting from operation of nonnuclear fabrication added to No Action concentrations are expected to be within Federal and state regulations. Modeled estimates for the 1-hour concentration of nitrogen dioxide at the Livermore Site, however, are above the applicable standard.

Sensitivity Analysis. Impacts to air quality from either the low or high case scenario of the program alternatives at the Livermore Site and Site 300 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 both cases are expected to be within applicable Federal and state regulations and guidelines. The 1-hour concentrations of nitrogen dioxide at the Livermore Site may result in a concentration above the applicable standard.

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 volatile organic compounds. 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.3.7-1. Table 4.7.3.3-1 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 be within Federal and state regulations. Modeled estimates for the 1-hour concentration of nitrogen dioxide at the Livermore Site, however, are above the applicable standard.

Proposed Contained Firing Facility. It is expected that emissions (such as particulate metal oxides and soot, acid gases, and VOCs) from the proposed CFF operations would be below regulatory limits because of the extensive air scrubbing, filtration, and absorption systems that would be operated in conjunction with the proposed CFF. Resulting emissions from the air control system should then be limited to those such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water, and, when tritium is used in the chamber, tritiated water as well as very minor amounts of activated air gas molecules (appendix J).

Combined Program Impacts. The combined impacts to air quality assuming that each of the proposed stockpile stewardship and management alternatives is located at the Livermore Site and Site 300 are small. Tables 4.7.3.3-1 and 4.7.3.3-2 present the Program total concentrations of criteria and toxic/hazardous pollutants derived by adding the contribution from each alternative at each site. 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 the Livermore Site and Site 300, the data indicate that the 1-hour concentration of nitrogen dioxide may result in a concentration above the applicable State of California ambient air quality standard at the Livermore Site. All other criteria and/or toxic/hazardous air pollutants are expected to be within applicable standards.

Potential Mitigation Measures. The reduction of emissions of nitrogen dioxide from the Livermore Site using reasonable available control technology would contribute to the reduction of concentrations of nitrogen dioxide at or beyond the site boundary.

4.7.3.4 Water Resources

Environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed stockpile stewardship and management facilities at LLNL could affect surface and groundwater resources. The proposed sites for the facilities would be outside the 100-year floodplain. An assessment of the 500-year floodplain would be performed before construction began. A description of the functions to be transferred to LLNL and the facility locations selected to house these activities is presented in sections 3.3 and 3.4. Tables 4.7.3.4-1 and 4.7.3.4-2 present existing surface and groundwater resources and the potential changes to water resources at the Livermore Site and Site 300 resulting from the proposed alternatives. The total site water resource requirements for each alternative, including No Action, are displayed in this table.

Surface Water

No Action. At the Livermore Site, water would continue to be obtained from county and state suppliers described in section 4.7.2.4. No construction would occur under No Action; therefore, no additional construction water would be required or discharged. Current public water usage of 968 MLY (256 MGY) would decrease to 967 MLY (255 MGY) by 2005. Current wastewater discharges to the city of Livermore are expected to increase 56 MLY (14.8 MGY) by 2005.

At Site 300, current wastewater discharges of 4.8 MLY (1.3 MGY) are anticipated to decrease 0.4 MLY (0.1 MGY) by 2005. Adverse impacts to surface water or surface water quality at the Livermore Site or Site 300 are not expected under the No Action alternative.

Management Alternatives

Secondary and Case Fabrication. The estimated 3.0 MLY (0.79 MGY) of public water withdrawals during modifications of the secondary and case fabrication facilities at the Livermore Site would compose no more than a 0.3-percent increase over the projected water use of 967 MLY (255 MGY). The 461 MLY (122 MGY) of treated wastewater effluent would be released to the city of Livermore Water Reclamation Plant during construction; this would be approximately a 15-percent increase over current Livermore Site wastewater discharges of 400 MLY (106 MGY). All discharges would be monitored to comply with NPDES permit and other discharge requirements. To minimize soil erosion impacts, stormwater management and erosion control measures would be implemented. With appropriate controls, adverse impacts to surface water are not expected.

An additional 194 MLY (51.2 MGY) would be required to support three-shift surge operations of the secondary and case fabrication facilities. This is approximately a 20-percent increase over the projected amount of water use. Approximately 102 MLY (27 MGY) of treated wastewater would be released to the city of Livermore Water Reclamation Plant during operations, resulting in a 40-percent increase over projected Livermore Site wastewater discharges. All discharges would be to the city of Livermore sewer system and would be monitored to comply with NPDES permit and other discharge requirements. Adverse impacts to surface water are not expected.

Table 4.7.3.4-1.--Potential Changes to Water Resources from Stockpile Stewardship and Management Alternatives at the Livermore Site

Table 4.7.3.4-2.--Potential Changes to Water Resources from Stockpile Stewardship and Management Alternatives at Site 300

Nonnuclear Fabrication. Public water use of 0.02 MLY (0.005 MGY) during modification of the nonnuclear fabrication facilities at the Livermore Site would comprise less than a 0.1-percent increase over the projected water use of 967 MLY (255 MGY). Approximately 0.02 MLY (0.005 MGY) of treated wastewater effluent would be released to the city of Livermore Water Reclamation Plant during the modification phase. All discharges would be to the city of Livermore sewer system and monitored to comply with NPDES permits and other requirements.

An additional 3.8 MLY (1 MGY) of public water is needed for operating the nonnuclear fabrication facilities. The estimated 462 MLY (122 MGY) of treated wastewater released to the city of Livermore Water Reclamation Plant during operations would be a 1.2-percent increase over projected wastewater discharges. All discharges would be to the city of Livermore sewer system and monitored to comply with NDPES permit and other discharge requirements. Adverse impacts to surface water are not expected.

High Explosives Fabrication. During construction and operations of these facilities at Site 300, surface, groundwater, public water supply (Hetch Hetchy Reservoir), or a combination of both, could be used to meet water requirements. If reservoir water is used, withdrawals of 91.2 MLY (24.1 MGY) during construction and modifications of the HE facilities would compose no more than 13 percent of the 693 MLY (183 MGY) capacity of the newly constructed tap line to the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct. The 5.8 MLY (1.5 MGY) of treated wastewater effluent released to the General Service Area leach fields and septic systems during construction would be 48 percent of the wastewater leach fields and septic systems capacity of 12 MLY (3.2 MGY). All discharges would be monitored to comply with NPDES permit and other discharge requirements. To minimize soil erosion impacts to surface waters, stormwater management and erosion control measures would be implemented. Adverse impacts to surface waters are not expected.

An additional 12.2 MLY (3.2 MGY) of treated wastewater would be released to the General Service Area leach fields and septic systems during operations. The additional wastewater represents a 178-percent increase over current wastewater discharges and exceeds the capacity of the leach fields and septic systems by 2 percent. Additional leach fields or modifications to the septic systems would have to be planned to meet the projected discharges. All discharges would be monitored to comply with permit and other discharge requirements.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility. Constructing the proposed NIF at the Livermore Site would require approximately 3 MLY (0.79 MGY) of water over the 5-year construction period or a 0.3-percent increase in the projected water requirements of 967 MLY (255 MGY). NIF's construction would require a California General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, which satisfies the requirements of both the NPDES and State of California stormwater regulations. Construction activities would be expected to have minor to negligible effects on water quality, assuming that a stormwater pollution prevention plan is prepared and implemented to minimize soil erosion, sedimentation, and contamination of stormwater. During construction, the additional 0.4 MLY (0.1 MGY) of wastewater generated would be handled by the existing city of Livermore sewer and treatment system. During operation, the proposed NIF would require approximately 152 MLY (40.2 MGY) of additional water, of which 17.9 MLY (4.7 MGY) would be used for domestic purposes. This amount is approximately 16 percent of the projected amount of the Livermore Site's water use. The proposed NIF operation would not exceed water and wastewater utility capacities.

Proposed Contained Firing Facility. Constructing the proposed CFF would require some excavation and terrain sloping. The direction and volume of existing runoff would not be altered by the proposed site work because all earth work would be accomplished within the same micro-drainage area below the division for adjacent watersheds. To minimize soil erosion impacts, stormwater management and erosion control measures would be implemented. Appendix J provides more detailed analyses of the proposed CFF.

Groundwater

No Action. Under No Action, the relatively small amount of groundwater used for irrigation and cooling tower makeup at the Livermore Site would remain the same. At Site 300, projected water use is expected to remain at the current 90 MLY (23.8 MGY) level. The two existing groundwater supply wells in the southeastern portion of the site are the sole source of this water; however, a tap line from the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct has been constructed with a capacity of 693 MLY (183 MGY) and is expected to be in operation in the near future. It is not known at this time how much Site 300 will rely on this additional water source. No additional impacts to groundwater quality are anticipated since there are no direct discharges to groundwater.

Management Alternatives

Secondary and Case Fabrication. During modification activities and operation of the secondary and case fabrication facilities at the Livermore Site, water would be obtained from the public suppliers described in section 4.7.2.4. There are no plans for withdrawal from groundwater resources. All process, utility, and sanitary wastewater would be discharged to the city of Livermore sewer systems for treatment at the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant. No adverse impacts to groundwater or groundwater quality are expected.

Nonnuclear Fabrication. During modification activities and operation of the nonnuclear fabrication facilities at the Livermore Site, water would be obtained from the public suppliers described in section 4.7.2.4. There are no plans for withdrawal from groundwater resources. All process, utility, and sanitary wastewater would be discharged to the city of Livermore sewer system for treatment at the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant. No adverse impacts to groundwater or groundwater quality are expected.

High Explosives Fabrication. The groundwater used while constructing and modifying the HE facilities would be approximately equal to current groundwater withdrawals of 90 MLY (23.8 MGY) from Site 300. During construction, no wastewater would be discharged directly to the ground. Adverse impacts to groundwater or groundwater quality are not expected.

Operating the facilities would require an additional 58.2 MLY (15.4 MGY), an approximate 65-percent increase over the projected amount of groundwater withdrawn from the aquifer. As previously mentioned, water could also be obtained from the newly constructed tap line connecting Site 300 to the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct. This new tap line has a supply capacity of 693 MLY (183 MGY). No wastewater would be discharged directly to groundwater. All discharges to the leach fields and septic systems would be monitored to comply with permit and other discharge requirements. Adverse impacts to groundwater or groundwater quality are not expected.

Sensitivity Analysis. Surface water or surface water quality would not be affected by either the low or high case production scenario for stockpile management alternatives at the Livermore Site and Site 300. Groundwater or groundwater quality is not expected to be impacted by the high or low case production scenario for stockpile management alternatives at the Livermore Site or Site 300.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility. During construction and operation of the proposed NIF facilities at the Livermore Site, water would be obtained from the public suppliers described in section 4.7.2.4. There would be no withdrawal from groundwater resources. All process, utility, and sanitary wastewater would be discharged to the city of Livermore sanitary sewer system for treatment at the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant. No adverse impacts to groundwater or groundwater quality are expected. Appendix I provides a more detailed analysis of the proposed NIF.

Proposed Contained Firing Facility. During construction and operation of the proposed CFF at Site 300, water would either be obtained from groundwater via the two onsite groundwater supply wells or from public water supply (Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct). An additional 1.9 MLY (0.5 MGY) would be required for construction activities and 2.3 MLY (0.60 MGY) for operation of the proposed CFF. These requirements compose less than a 3-percent increase from projected groundwater use. No adverse impacts to groundwater or groundwater quality are expected. Appendix J provides a more detailed analysis of the proposed CFF.

Combined Program Impacts. The combined Program impacts to water resources if each proposed alternative was implemented at the Livermore Site are shown in table 4.7.3.4-1. During construction approximately 973 MLY (257 MGY) of public supply water would be used. Approximately 1,317 MLY (348 MGY) of public supply water would be required for operation of the facilities; this represents a 36-percent increase from the projected water use. Wastewater discharges during construction and operation of the facilities would total 458 MLY (121 MGY) and 582 MLY (154 MGY), respectively. All wastewater would be discharged to the city of Livermore sewer systems. Adverse impacts to both surface water and groundwater quality are not anticipated.

Potential Mitigation Measures. Additional leach fields or modifications to the septic systems would have to be planned in order to meet the projected HE fabrication wastewater discharges. Reclaiming or recycling wastewater would reduce sanitary discharges and minimize the impact on the existing Site 300 sanitary treatment system.

4.7.3.5 Geology and Soils

The alternatives proposed for LLNL would have no adverse impact on geological resources described in section 4.7.2.5. Although a relatively high seismic risk exists at LLNL, this would be considered in the design of any new structures. The existing seismic risk does not preclude safe construction, modification, or operation of any proposed facilities. All new functions, with the exceptions of the proposed NIF and CFF, would be accommodated in existing structures. For the management alternatives, LLNL has sufficient warehousing space, parking space, and yard area to accommodate construction area requirements. Control measures would be used to minimize any soil erosion. Potential changes to geology and soils associated with the proposed alternatives at LLNL are discussed below.

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

Management Alternatives

Secondary and Case Fabrication. Soil disturbance is not expected during modification of existing buildings for the secondary and case fabrication mission at the Livermore Site. Since facilities needed for the secondary and case fabrication mission already exist, only laydown areas for receiving and staging equipment and construction materials are needed. The Livermore Site has sufficient warehousing space and developed yard area to accommodate this requirement. Offices for construction engineering and management would be provided by plant engineering, or trailers would be located adjacent to facilities undergoing modification. Parking for construction workers is available onsite. Adverse soil impacts are not expected. The construction of a 167-m² (1,800-ft^{2 ) steel-framed Butler-type building that is needed to provide covered space within the Superblock protected area would not affect geology or soils.}

The potential for surface faulting at the Livermore Site is very low (LL DOE 1992c:4-84). Ground shaking is more likely. Based on the seismic history of the area, a high seismic risk exists but should not preclude safe modification and operation of the proposed facilities. Potential sources of future ground motion at LLNL include the major regional faults and the local faults: Greenville, Las Positas, Verona, Corral Hollow, Carnegie, and Williams (LL DOE 1992c:4-83,4-84). The location of the proposed facilities would be evaluated at the Livermore Site during project-specific studies so that these faults and any associated potential ground rupture would be considered in facilities design. All facilities would be designed for earthquake-generated ground acceleration in accordance with DOE O 420.1 and accompanying safety guides. Potential health impacts from accidents associated with geological hazards are discussed in 4.7.3.9.

High Explosives Fabrication. No significant upgrades to either the HE Applications Facility at the Livermore Site or to Site 300 are anticipated should LLNL receive the HE fabrication mission for the Complex. All production operations would be housed within existing buildings, with the exception of a 116-m² (1,250-ft² ) facility for conventional HE storage. Soil disturbances during construction of the new storage facility would be minimal with standard construction erosion control measures.

Based on the seismic history of the area, a high seismic risk exists but should not preclude safe modification and operation of the proposed facilities. Potential sources of future ground motion at Site 300 include the major regional faults and the local faults: Greenville, Las Positas, Corral Hollow, Carnegie, Black Butte, and Midway (LL DOE 1992c:4-87). The location of the proposed facilities would be evaluated at LLNL during project-specific studies so that these faults and any associated potential ground rupture would be considered in facilities design. Surface faulting at Site 300 in areas adjacent to the active Carnegie fault is possible (LL DOE 1992c:4-87). However, no HE facilities are located in these areas. The potential for seismically induced ground deformation at Buildings 826, 851, and 854, located on landslide deposits, is considered to be moderate to high (LL DOE 1992c:4-89). All facilities would be designed for earthquake-generated ground acceleration in accordance with DOE O 420.1 and accompanying safety guides.

Nonnuclear Fabrication. All production operations can be housed within existing buildings at the Livermore Site. Material and equipment laydown and parking areas exist, and no additional areas would be required. Adverse soil impacts are not expected. Seismic risks would be similar to the risks associated with the secondary and case fabrication mission.

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

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility. The construction and operation of the proposed NIF at the Livermore Site would not adversely affect geological resources. The proposed NIF would require the clearing of an estimated 8.1 ha (20 acres) of land for structures, walkways, building access, and buffer space. Soil impacts during construction would be short term and minor with appropriate standard construction erosion and sediment control measures. Net soil disturbance during operation would be less than for construction because areas temporarily used for material and equipment laydown would be restored. Seismic risks would be taken into account during construction and operation of NIF (see appendix I).

Proposed Contained Firing Facility. Construction of the proposed CFF at LLNL would result in minor soil impacts at Site 300 in the vicinity of the B801 complex. About 36,700 m³ (48,000 yd³ ) of soil surrounding the current facility would be excavated and removed to provide space for the new portion of the facility. Approximately 1.2 ha (3 acres) would be permanently disturbed immediately around the B801 complex as a result of necessary slope contouring and construction of the proposed CFF. Soils exposed by project construction, especially on the hillsides, are considered to be moderately vulnerable to erosion; their clay content provides slightly more resistance to erosion than does the high loam content of entisols, which dominate Site 300 soil types. Erosion, if it occurs, would be minor and short term. Erosion of the small hillsides surrounding the proposed project would not be expected beyond one growing season. Cut hillsides would be sloped and, where local geology allows, revegetated (using hydroseeding) to prevent erosion. The direction and volume of existing runoff would not be altered by the proposed site work because all earthwork would be accomplished within the same micro-drainage area below the division for adjacent watersheds. Dust suppression and stormwater pollution prevention (runoff) mitigation technologies would be applied to reduce these impacts (see appendix J).

Existing B801 site slopes are stable. Unconsolidated overburden is only a few feet thick in the area and bedrock dips at a shallow angle (about 5 degrees) to the northeast. However, a recently active landslide deposit has been observed east of the site within about 244 m (800 ft). This landslide is reported to have generated a mudflow that reached the vicinity of the B801 site during a 15-year period prior to 1983. This mudflow appears to have been mitigated by placement of an earthen fill between the flow and the B801 site. Appropriate slope stabilization measures would be taken in the design and construction of graded slopes (see appendix J).

A number of active faults are considered capable of causing strong ground motion at Site 300. The nearest of these faults to Site 300 is the Carnegie-Corral Hollow fault, which crosses the southwest portion of the site. No significant recorded earthquakes have occurred on any of the local faults. The effect of seismic activity at Site 300 is likely to be confined to ground shaking with no surface displacement. Raber and Carpenter have identified the principal seismic hazard at Site 300 as being the potential for strong ground shaking caused by an earthquake on the Greenville fault, located about 8 km (5 mi) west of Site 300 (see appendix J). Facilities would be designed for earthquake-generated ground acceleration in accordance with DOE O 420.1 and accompanying safety guides.

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

4.7.3.6 Biotic Resources

The following sections address impacts to terrestrial resources, wetlands, aquatic resources, and threatened and endangered species at LLNL. Construction and operation of the HE Fabrication Facility, proposed CFF, and proposed NIF would result in loss of terrestrial habitat and possible impacts to threatened and endangered species. Temporary impacts to wildlife due to noise and human presence during construction are also possible for most of these alternatives.

No Action. Under No Action, the stockpile stewardship missions described in section 3.2.7 would continue at LLNL. There would be no changes to current biotic resource conditions at the site as described in section 4.7.2.6.

Management Alternatives

Secondary and Case Fabrication. The secondary and case fabrication mission at the Livermore Site would require modification of some existing structures and construction of one Butler-style building. New construction would take place within an area of the Livermore Site that is already developed. Temporary construction laydown and parking would utilize existing warehousing and yard area. Wastewater would be discharged to the sanitary sewer system. Except for some temporary disturbance to wildlife during construction of the new building, no adverse impacts to site biotic resources are expected.

High Explosives Fabrication. Most operations associated with the HE fabrication mission at LLNL would be housed within existing buildings within the B827 Area of Site 300. However, an HE storage area would need to be developed. This facility would be located just southeast of the B827 Area. Impacts to biotic resources are not expected from modification activities conducted at existing buildings. The HE storage area would result in the disturbance of about 0.8 ha (2 acres) of grassland. Proper erosion and sediment control measures would reduce the potential for disturbance of habitat adjacent to the construction area. Construction and operation would result in some disturbance to wildlife living in adjacent areas due to noise and human presence. Impacts to wetlands and aquatic resources would not be expected due to the general lack of these resources in the area. The presence of threatened and endangered species in the area to be disturbed is unknown. Preactivity surveys would be required to determine the occurrence of any special status species including the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica ), San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inoratus ), western burrowing owl, (Athene cunicularia hypugea ), California horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale ), and American badger (Taxidea taxus ).

Nonnuclear Fabrication. Nonnuclear fabrication mission functions would be located in existing buildings at the Livermore Site. No new construction would be required and wastewater would be released through existing NPDES-permitted discharges. The relocation of the nonnuclear fabrication mission to the Livermore Site would not impact biotic resources.

Sensitivity Analysis. Implementation of either a low or high case workload for the stockpile management alternatives would not effect biological resources of LLNL with the exception of those already described for the proposed HE Fabrication Facility.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility

Terrestrial Resources. The proposed NIF would be sited on an 8.1-ha (20-acre) area of disturbed grassland located within the Livermore Site. Proper erosion and sediment control measures would reduce the potential for disturbance of habitat adjacent to the construction area. Animal species within the disturbed area would be either destroyed or displaced depending upon whether they were able to move from the area. Wildlife may also be disturbed by the increased level of human activity associated with the project.

Wetlands. The proposed NIF site does not contain, nor is it located near, wetlands. Construction and operation of the proposed NIF is not expected to adversely impact this resource. Proper erosion and sediment control measures would reduce the potential of impacting site wetlands.

Aquatic Resources. Because there are no aquatic resources on the proposed NIF site, this resource would not be disturbed by construction. Proper erosion and sediment control measures would reduce the potential of sediment-laden runoff from reaching site arroyos.

Threatened and Endangered Species. Adverse impacts to special status species would not be expected from construction or operation of the proposed NIF due to the lack of suitable habitat and the disturbed nature of the proposed site.

Proposed Contained Firing Facility

Terrestrial Resources. Construction of the proposed CFF would result in the disturbance of approximately 1.2 ha (3.0 acres) of hillside land adjacent to the present Site 300 B801 complex. While some of the area to be developed has been previously disturbed, some land adjacent to B801 would be impacted. Erosion and sediment control measures would reduce the potential for disturbance of habitat adjacent to the construction area. Animal species within the disturbed area would be either destroyed or displaced depending upon whether they were able to move from the area. Wildlife may also be disturbed by the increased level of human activity associated with the project.

Wetlands. Direct disturbance to wetlands from construction would not occur since there are no wetlands located on the site. However, a cattail wetland (resulting from cooling tower discharge), located about 60 m (197 ft) south-southwest of B801, could be affected by sediment runoff. Erosion and sediment control measures would be used to reduce the risk of indirect impacts to this wetland.

Aquatic Resources. There are no aquatic resources on or near the B801 area; therefore, aquatic resources would not be affected by construction or operation of the proposed CFF.

Threatened and Endangered Species. No known Federal- or state-listed endangered plant or animal species are present within the immediate vicinity of the B801 complex. The potential for impacts to the western burrowing owl and American badger from construction and operation of the proposed CFF are considered minimal. Western burrowing owl dens have become established during periods of road construction south of B801 and during long periods of outdoor explosives testing at the present B801 complex; thus, it is unlikely that construction and operation of the new facility would adversely affect this species. American badgers should not be affected due to the relatively small portion of the species' home range (less than 1 percent) that would be occupied by the project, the large amount of unrestricted land at Site 300, and the transient nature of American badgers. Preactivity surveys for special status species (i.e., San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, and American badger) would be conducted prior to the start of the project and, if found, appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented.

Potential Mitigation Measures. Minimization of the area to be disturbed, revegetation with native species, and implementation of a soil erosion and sediment control plan would help to lessen short- and long-term impacts to terrestrial species and habitats, as well as wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed CFF. Disturbance to wildlife living adjacent to 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 occur on the site, specific mitigation measures would be developed in conjunction with the USFWS.

4.7.3.7 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 modifications, 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. Some cultural and paleontological resources may be affected by the proposed alternatives.

No Action. Under No Action, DOE would continue the existing and planned missions of the Livermore Site and Site 300. Any impacts to cultural or paleontological resources from these missions would be independent of and unaffected by the proposed action.

Management Alternatives

Secondary and Case Fabrication. The secondary and case fabrication mission at the Livermore Site would involve equipment movement, installation, building modification, and the construction of one 167 m2 (1,800 ft² ) steel framed Butler-style building within the Superblock protected area. No cultural or paleontological resources are known to exist within the proposed area; however, some resources may be affected by the proposed alternative. 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.

High Explosives Fabrication. LLNL maintains most of the facilities necessary for HE fabrication within the B827 area of Site 300. An HE storage area would need to be developed. The proposed facility would be located to the southeast of the B827 area. About 0.8 ha (2 acres) would be disturbed during construction. Site 300 has been surveyed and does contain prehistoric and historic resources. Additional resources may exist in the acreage to be disturbed during construction. Some Native American and paleontological resources may also be affected. Project-specific evaluations and any project-related effects would be addressed in tiered NEPA documentation. No impacts to cultural or paleontological resources are expected. Sharing this mission with LANL would have no effects on cultural or paleontological resources at LLNL.

Nonnuclear Fabrication. The nonnuclear fabrication mission at LLNL would involve equipment movement, installation, and some modification to existing buildings. Some NRHP-eligible historic buildings may be affected under this alternative. NRHP-eligible resources would be identified through project-specific inventories and evaluations, and any project-related effects would be addressed in tiered NEPA documentation. No impacts are expected to prehistoric, Native American, or paleontological resources.

Sensitivity Analysis. The secondary and case, HE, and nonnuclear alternatives high and low case production scenarios would have the same impacts to cultural and paleontological resources as the base case production facilities.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility. The proposed alternative would require the construction of two buildings and the development of 8.1 ha (20 acres) of currently undeveloped land at the Livermore Site. No prehistoric or historic resources exist on the proposed location for NIF at the Livermore Site. Six to 13 m (2 to 4 ft) of fill cover the proposed location, which is underlain by soils deposited approximately 15,000 years ago. These soils predate the earliest documented human settlement in the area, and it is unlikely that these soils contain prehistoric materials. Paleontological remains have not been recovered from the soils. Consultation is in progress with Native American groups to identify any important cultural resources on the Livermore Site (appendix I).

Proposed Contained Firing Facility. Under this alternative, 36,701 m³ (48,000 yd³ ) of soils surrounding the existing B801 facility at Site 300 would be excavated. A surface survey conducted in 1981 recorded one prehistoric site 394 m (1,300 ft) from the proposed project area. Additional NRHP-eligible prehistoric and historic sites may exist in the area. Should culturally significant materials be encountered during construction, work would stop until the discovery could be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Some paleontological resources with moderate research potential exist within Site 300 and may be affected by the proposed action. Consultation is in progress with Native American groups to identify any important cultural resources on Site 300 (appendix J).

Potential Mitigation Measures. If NRHP-eligible resources cannot be avoided through project design or siting, and would result in adverse impacts, then a Memorandum of Agreement would need to be negotiated between DOE, the California 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 California 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 cannot be avoided through project design or siting, then acceptable mitigation measures to reduce project effects 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 operations, or transplanting or harvesting important Native American plant resources.

Because scientifically important buried paleontological materials could be affected, paleontological monitoring of construction activities and data recovery of fossil remains would be appropriate mitigation measures.

4.7.3.8 Socioeconomics

No Action. Under No Action, the existing stewardship R&D missions would remain operational at LLNL. No new employment or in-migration of workers would be required. Projected regional economy and employment levels, population and housing changes, and public finance characteristics are presented in appendix D.

Regional Economy and Employment. Total employment in the regional economic area is projected to increase by about 2 percent annually between 1996 and 2000, and reach approximately 4,621,900 in 2000. Long-range projections show employment growth continuing at this rate until 2020 when annual growth falls to less than 1 percent. Total employment is projected to number 6,555,300 in 2030. No Action employment at LLNL is projected to reach 8,189 by 2005. Unemployment in the regional economic area was 7.6 percent in 1994 and is expected to remain near that level into the near future. Per capita income is projected to increase from approximately $27,215 to $41,570 between 1996 and 2030.

Population and Housing. Annual ROI county and city population and housing growth is projected to average about 2 percent from 1995 to 2000, but then slow to 1 percent between 2000 and 2030. The ROI population is projected to increase from 2,841,200 in 1995 to 4,421,000 in 2030. The total number of housing units is projected to increase from 1,074,200 to 1,671,600 during the same period.

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 1.8 percent. Total expenditures are projected to increase at an annual average of less than 1.4 percent during the same period. These rates of increase should continue until 2030.

Management Alternatives

Secondary and Case Fabrication

Regional Economy and Employment. During peak construction, the modification and renovation of these facilities would employ 130 workers during 2000, the peak year of construction, and generate an additional 194 indirect jobs in the regional economy. Total employment in the regional economic area would increase by less than 1 percent from the No Action projections. There would be no perceptible change in either the regional economic area per capita income or the unemployment rate.

Although operation of the facility would require a larger and more permanent workforce than construction, resulting increases to the regional economic area's employment and income would still be less than 1 percent. During operation of the facility, the creation of 290 direct jobs at LLNL would generate 722 indirect jobs in other industries in the region. Because so few jobs are generated relative to the large regional economic area, the unemployment rate would remain unchanged from the No Action level of 7.6 percent. See figure 4.7.3.8-1.

Population and Housing. Sufficient available labor within the region eliminates the need for any in-migrant workers to fill direct or indirect jobs created as a result of this alternative; therefore, housing and population would remain the same as under the No Action alternative.

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 attributed to income increases and would be negligible.

High Explosives Fabrication. The HE fabrication alternative would involve the transfer of HE fabrication functions from Pantex to LLNL. A variation of this alternative would divide the HE mission between LANL and LLNL. This latter option would require a smaller workforce at each of the receiving sites than if the entire mission were transferred to one laboratory. The regional economy would still benefit, but on a smaller scale than described below.

Regional Economy and Employment. During peak construction a total of 47 jobs (19 direct and 28 indirect) would be generated in the region. Total employment in the regional economic area would increase by less than 1 percent. There would be no perceptible change in either the regional economic area per capita income or unemployment rate.

Although operation of the facility would have a greater impact on the regional economic area's employment and income because of a larger required workforce, the resulting increases would still constitute a less than 1 percent increase from the No Action alternative. Operations would generate a total of approximately 255 jobs (100 direct and 155 indirect) in the region, too small a number to affect the unemployment rate in such a large urban regional economic area. See figure 4.7.3.8-1.

Population and Housing. Because all direct and indirect jobs created as a result of transferring the HE fabrication mission to LLNL would be filled by the available labor force within the regional economic area, housing and population would remain the same as in the No Action alternative.

Public Finance. Construction and operation of the HE 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.

Nonnuclear Fabrication

Regional Economy and Employment. During peak modification activities a total of 15 jobs (6 direct and 9 indirect) would be generated. Changes in the regional economic area's employment would be less than 1 percent. There would be no perceptible change in either the regional economic area per capita income or the unemployment rate.

Although operations would have a greater impact on the regional economic area's employment, because of the larger workforce, the resulting increases in both employment and income would still be less than 1 percent. Operation of the facility would generate a total of about 131 jobs (60 direct and 71 indirect) in the region, too small a number to affect unemployment in such a large urban regional economic area. This is shown in figure 4.7.3.8-1.

Population and Housing. Projections indicate that available labor within the regional economic area would be sufficient to fill all direct and indirect jobs created by both modification and operation of the facility. Therefore, housing demand and population growth would remain unchanged from No Action projections.

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.

Sensitivity Analysis Construction employment requirements for the low case secondary and case fabrication mission at LLNL are the same as for the base case surge discussed above. Therefore, the socioeconomic impacts on the region from the construction would also be the same. Construction to meet the high case production scenario would require 10 additional workers. However, the socioeconomic effects on the region would remain essentially unchanged from the base case surge level. Employment requirements for operation under the low case production scenario would be less than for the base case surge. Accordingly, the economic benefits would also be smaller than projected for the base case surge level.

High case operation of the Secondary and Case Fabrication Facility would require more workers than base case surge operation. However, the expected changes to the total regional economic area employment would still be less than 1 percent. Some of these additional workers would have to in-migrate to the regional economic area to fill specific employment requirements. Population would increase slightly, as would housing demand. However, these population increases would also be less than 1 percent and would be readily accommodated by projected vacancies within the housing stock.

Construction employment requirements for the high or low case HE fabrication and nonnuclear fabrication missions at LLNL are the same as for the base case surge level discussed above. Therefore, the socioeconomic impacts on the region from construction would also be the same.

During full operation, employment requirements for the base case surge of these alternatives would equal or exceed employment needs for the high and low cases. The region would still benefit economically from the high or low case, but on a smaller scale than from the base case surge due to a smaller workforce.

Stewardship Alternatives

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

Regional Economic Impacts. Construction of the proposed NIF would require 470 construction workers during the peak year of construction and would generate an additional 2,400 indirect jobs in the regional economic area. Employment for operation would begin phasing in as the construction phase neared completion. Operation of the facility would require 330 direct workers and would generate an additional 560 indirect jobs in the regional economic area. Construction and operation of the proposed NIF would have only minimal affects on the regional economy and employment. During both phases there would be no perceptible change in the unemployment rate attributable to the proposed project, and changes to per capita income would be less than 1 percent.

Population and Housing. Both construction and operation of the facility would require workers and their families to in-migrate to the ROI. Population increases would total about 1,600 during construction and 350 during operation. This in-migration would cause a slight increase in the housing demand during both periods. However, the demand for additional housing during construction would absorb less than 2 percent of the projected vacant housing stock in the ROI. The increase in demand during operations would be much smaller and have no effect in the housing market.

Public Finance. Both revenues and expenditures would increase as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed 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 operation.

Proposed Contained Firing Facility. There are no identified effects over No Action to the socioeconomics of the LLNL regional economic area as a result of the modification activities or operation of CFF.

Combined Program Impacts. If the secondary and case fabrication, HE fabrication, nonnuclear fabrication, and NIF missions were all located at LLNL, the resulting benefits to the regional economy would be greater than from any one mission. However, the changes in regional total employment and per capita income would still be less than 1 percent. This is shown infigure 4.7.3.8-1. There would be sufficient labor available in the projected labor force to fill any employment requirements, and population and housing would remain as projected in the No Action alternative.

Potential Mitigation Measures . Adding any new missions to LLNL would create new jobs and generally benefit the local economy through increased earnings in the ROI. Because the effects on population and housing markets are so slight relative to the size of the region, and are generally perceived to be beneficial, no mitigation measures would be necessary.

4.7.3.9 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 the proposed alternatives at LLNL. 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 to the public and to workers associated with normal operation at LLNL are presented in tables 4.7.3.9-1 through 4.7.3.9-4. Radiological accident impacts are presented in figure 4.7.3.9-1 and in tables 4.7.3.9-5 through 4.7.3.9-9. 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 and from equipment refueling) may occur because of 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 operation and operation of the stockpile stewardship and management alternatives at LLNL 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 LLNL, 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 Effect Technical Reference (TTI 1996b).

No Action

Radiological Impacts. Radiological impacts to the public resulting from the No Action alternative are presented in tables 4.7.3.9-1 and 4.7.3.9-2 for the Livermore Site and Site 300, respectively. These impacts are representative of the aggregated total which is estimated to exist from all future baseline operational contributions. Total impacts are provided to compare to 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 tables 4.7.3.9-1 and 4.7.3.9-2, the total dose to the maximally exposed member of the public from annual total site operations is within radiological limits and would be 0.065 mrem for the No Action alternative at the Livermore Site and 0.080 mrem at Site 300. The annual population dose within 80 km (50 mi) in 2030 would be 0.76 person-rem at the Livermore Site and 0.17 person-rem at Site 300.

Total site doses to onsite workers from normal operation for the No Action alternative are presented in table 4.7.3.9-3 for the Livermore Site and table 4.7.3.9-4 for Site 300. The estimated annual dose to the entire facility workforce for this alternative would be 18 person-rem at the Livermore Site and 0.42 person-rem at Site 300.

Based on the radiological impacts associated with normal operation under the No Action alternative, all resulting doses are within radiological limits and would be well below levels of natural background radiation. The associated risks of adverse health effects to the public and to workers would be small.

Table 4.7.3.9-1.--Potential Radiological Impacts to the Public Resulting from Normal Operation of Stockpile Stewardship and Management Alternatives at the Livermore Site

Hazardous Chemical Impacts. Hazardous chemical impacts to the public resulting from normal operation under No Action at LLNL are presented below. Analyses to support the values presented in this section are provided in appendix table E.3.4-20. 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 chemical health concern. 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 by 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 member of the public at LLNL resulting from normal operation under the No Action alternative would be 1.34, and the cancer risk would be 4.55x10^-7 . The HI for the onsite worker would be 2.39, and the cancer risk would be 4.53x10^-6 .

The HIs for the public (1.34) and the onsite worker narrowly exceed the cumulative HQ screening level of 1.0 (the HI) as a result of the total emissions of over 100 of 130 hazardous chemicals listed in appendix table E.3.4-20 under the No Action alternative. Individual OSHA standards for specific effects were not necessarily exceeded. However, if reanalyzed according to organ/tissue specific effects (i.e., after second stage analysis), it is very likely that the HIs would prove acceptable. The cancer risks for the onsite worker (4.53x10^-6) narrowly exceed the EPA default value as a result of the emissions of 1,1-dichloroethylene, 1,4-dioxane, arsenic, benzene, cadmium, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, chromium VI, epichlorohydrin, folpet, methylene chloride, nickel, and trichloroethylene.

Table 4.7.3.9-2.-- Potential Radiological Impacts to the Public Resulting from Normal Operation of Stockpile Stewardship Alternatives at Site 300

Table 4.7.3.9-3.--Potential Radiological Impacts to Workers Resulting from Normal Operation of Stockpile Stewardship and Management Alternatives at the Livermore Site

Table 4.7.3.9-4.-- Potential Radiological Impacts to Workers Resulting from Normal Operation of Stockpile Stewardship Alternatives at Site 300

Management Alternatives

Secondary and Case Fabrication

Radiological Impacts. Radiological impacts to the public resulting from the secondary and case fabrication alternative are presented in table 4.7.3.9-1. These impacts are representative of the aggregate total which is estimated to exist from all future baseline operational Livermore Site contributions and from three-shift base case operations for secondary and case fabrication at the site. Total impacts are provided to compare to 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 4.7.3.9-1, the total dose to the maximally exposed member of the public from annual total site operations is within radiological limits and would be 1.3 mrem for this alternative. The annual population dose within 80 km (50 mi) in 2030 would be 1.6 person-rem. Total site doses to onsite workers from normal operation for the secondary and case fabrication mission are presented in table 4.7.3.9-3. 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 0.55 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 normal operation of the secondary and case fabrication alternative at the Livermore Site 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.3.4-21.

The incremental HI for the maximally exposed member of the public would be 8.97x10^-3 , and the incremental cancer risk would be zero as a result of the secondary and case fabrication mission at the Livermore Site. The incremental HI for the onsite worker would be 6.16x10^-3 , and the incremental cancer risk would be zero as a result of the secondary and case fabrication mission.

Total site operations and the incremental effects of the secondary and case fabrication mission would result in the HIs for the public (1.35) and the onsite worker (2.40) narrowly exceeding the cumulative HQ screening level of 1.0 (the HI), but not necessarily exceeding the individual OSHA standards for specific effects. The cancer risks for the public (3.80x10^-7) are within the EPA default value of concern of 1x10^-6 . The cancer risks to the onsite worker (4.53x10^-6) narrowly exceed the EPA default value.

The HI for the public and the onsite worker exceeds the cumulative HQ screening level of 1.0 (the HI) as a result of the total emissions of over 100 of 130 hazardous chemicals due to No Action total site operations at LLNL. The individual OSHA standards for specific effects were not necessarily exceeded. However, if reanalyzed according to organ/tissue specific effects (i.e., after second stage analysis), it is very likely that the HIs would prove acceptable. The cancer risks for the onsite worker exceed the EPA default value as a result of the No Action emissions of 1,1-dichloroethylene; 1,4-dioxane; arsenic; benzene; cadmium; carbon tetrachloride; chloroform; chromium VI; epichlorohydrin; folpet; methylene chloride; nickel; and trichloroethylene.

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 LLNL 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.3.4-22.

The incremental HI for the maximally exposed member of the public would be 1.42x10^-3 , and the incremental cancer risk would be 8.47x10^-10 as a result of the HE fabrication mission at LLNL. The incremental HI for the onsite worker would be 5.62x10^-4 , and the incremental cancer risk would be 8.43x10^-9 as a result of the HE fabrication mission.

Total site operations and the incremental effect of the HE fabrication mission would result in the HIs for the public (1.34) and the onsite worker (2.39) narrowly exceeding the cumulative HQ screening level of 1.0 (the HI), but not necessarily exceeding the individual OSHA standards for specific effects. The cancer risk for the public is within the EPA default value of 1x10^-6 . The cancer risk to the onsite worker (1.79x10-6) narrowly exceeds the EPA default value.

The HI for the public and the onsite worker exceeds the cumulative HQ screening level of 1.0 (the HI) as a result of the total emissions of over 100 of 130 hazardous chemicals due to No Action total site operations at LLNL. Individual OSHA standards for specific effects were not necessarily exceeded. However, if reanalyzed according to organ/tissue specific effects (i.e., after second stage analysis), it is very likely that the HIs would prove acceptable. The cancer risk for the onsite worker exceeds the EPA default value as a result of the No Action emissions of 1,1-dichloroethylene; 1,4-dioxane; arsenic; benzene; cadmium; carbon tetrachloride; chloroform; chromium VI; epichlorohydrin; folpet; methylene chloride; nickel; and trichloroethylene.

Sharing of the HE fabrication mission with LANL 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, and the cancer risk could drop to approximately 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 the normal operation of the nonnuclear fabrication alternative at the Livermore Site 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.3.4-23.

The incremental HI for the maximally exposed member of the public would be 4.94x10^-5 , and the incremental cancer risk is zero as a result of the nonnuclear fabrication alternative at the Livermore Site. The incremental HI for the onsite worker would be 1.20x10-6, and the incremental cancer risk would be zero as a result of the nonnuclear fabrication mission.

Total site operations and the incremental effects of the nonnuclear fabrication mission would result in the HIs for the public (1.34) and the onsite worker (2.39) narrowly exceeding the cumulative HQ screening level of 1.0 (the HI), but not necessarily exceeding individual OSHA standards for specific effects. The cancer risk for the public (4.55x10-7) is within the EPA default value of 1x10^-6 . The cancer risk for the onsite worker (4.53x10-6) narrowly exceeds the EPA default value.

The HIs for the public and the onsite worker exceed the cumulative HQ screening level of 1.0 (the HI) as a result of the total emissions of over 100 of 130 hazardous chemicals due to No Action and total site operations at the Livermore Site. However, if reanalyzed according to organ/tissue specific effects (i.e., after second stage analysis), it is very likely that the HIs would prove acceptable. The cancer risk to the onsite worker exceeds the EPA default value as a result of the No Action emissions of 1,1-dichloroethylene; 1,4-dioxane; arsenic; benzene; cadmium; carbon tetrachloride; chloroform; chromium VI; epichlorohydrin; folpet; methylene chloride; nickel; and trichloroethylene.

Sensitivity Analysis. Radiological impacts may be subject to certain degrees of variance resulting from either high or low case operations for secondary and case fabrication. For the high case scenario, total 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 public and site workforce would be expected to fall within the increment (range) projected between the No Action and the secondary and case fabrication alternatives (less than 1.2 mrem/year to the maximally exposed individual, less than 0.84 person-rem/year to the population, and less than 1 person-rem/year to the total site workforce).

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 to the public and to workers would be small.

Operations under the low case scenario for secondary and case, HE, and nonnuclear fabrication are not expected to appreciably affect hazardous chemical emissions at LLNL and, therefore, would not adversely affect the HI impacts and cancer risks for the public and the onsite worker.

Operations under the high case scenario for secondary and case fabrication may result in up to a two- to four-fold increase in the emission of hazardous chemicals at LLNL. Chemical emissions under the high case scenario may substantially increase the HI impact to the public and raise the HI for the onsite worker above the cumulative HQ screening level of 1.0 (the HI), but not necessarily the individual OSHA standards for specific effects. Cancer risks for the public are below the EPA default value, but operations under the high case scenario may increase cancer risks above the EPA default value. Since cancer risks for the onsite worker already exceed the EPA default value, operations under the high case scenario would further contribute to the adverse cancer risk impacts.

Operations under the high case scenario for HE fabrication may result in up to a two-fold increase in the emission of hazardous chemicals at LLNL. Chemical emissions under the high case scenario may increase the HI impact for the public and raise the HI for the onsite worker above the cumulative HQ screening level of 1.0 (the HI), but not necessarily the individual OSHA standards for specific effects. Cancer risks for the public are below the EPA default value, but operations under the high case scenario may increase cancer risks above the EPA default value. Since cancer risks for the onsite worker already exceed the EPA default value, operations under the high case scenario would further contribute to the adverse cancer risk impacts.

Operations under the high case scenario for nonnuclear fabrication may result in up to a 2.5-fold increase in the emissions of hazardous chemicals at LLNL. Chemical emissions under the high case scenario would further adversely affect the HI impact for the public and raise the HI for the onsite worker above the cumulative HQ screening level of 1.0 (the HI), but not necessarily the individual OSHA standards for specific effects. The HI might still be acceptable upon reanalysis according to organ/tissue specific effects. Cancer risks for the public are below the EPA default value, but operations under the high case scenario may adversely affect cancer risks. Since cancer risks for the onsite worker already exceed the EPA default value, operations under the high case scenario would contribute to the adverse cancer risk impacts.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility

Radiological Impacts. Radiological impacts to the public resulting from normal operation of the proposed NIF for the enhanced option scenario are presented in table 4.7.3.9-1. These impacts are representative of the aggregate total which is estimated to exist from all future baseline operational Livermore Site contributions and from enhanced option operations of the proposed NIF at the site. Total impacts are provided to compare to 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 4.7.3.9-1, the total dose to the maximally exposed member of the public from annual total site operations is within radiological limits and would be 0.17 mrem for this alternative. The annual population dose within 80 km (50 mi) in 2030 would be 0.96 person-rem.

Total site doses to onsite workers from normal operation for the proposed NIF are presented in table 4.7.3.9-3. 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 to the public and to workers would be small.

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

Proposed Contained Firing Facility

Radiological Impacts. Radiological impacts to the public resulting from normal operation of the proposed CFF alternative are presented in table 4.7.3.9-2. These impacts are representative of the aggregate total which is estimated to exist from all future baseline operational Site 300 contributions and from operations for the proposed CFF at the site. Total impacts are provided to compare to 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 4.7.3.9-2, the total dose to the maximally exposed member of the public from annual total site operations is within radiological limits and would be 0.12 mrem for this alternative. The annual population dose within 80 km (50 mi) in 2030 would be 0.49 person-rem.

Total site doses to onsite workers from normal operation of the proposed CFF are presented in table 4.7.3.9-4. The average annual dose to involved workers for this alternative would be less than 250 mrem. The dose to the entire facility workforce (involved workforce) would be less than 0.75 person-rem. The presented noninvolved worker impacts were modeled for this alternative due to the availability 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 to the public and to workers would be small.

Hazardous Chemical Impacts. No hazardous chemical impacts are expected from the proposed CFF (see appendix J). Therefore, the HI and cancer risks for the public and the onsite worker were not calculated nor assessed.

Combined Program Impacts. Radiological impacts to the public and to workers from the simultaneous operation of all Livermore Site (and all Site 300) proposed alternatives, respectively, would result in very small increases over the No Action or the largest contributing 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 with operation of the No Action alternative and the incremental emissions incurred by the management alternatives (secondary and case fabrication, HE fabrication, and nonnuclear fabrication) result in a combined HI for the public of (1.13) and a cancer risk of (4.55x10^-7). The combined HI for the onsite worker is (2.40), and the combined cancer risk is (4.53x10^-6).

The combined Program HI for the public narrowly exceeds the acceptable health level; the HI for the onsite worker increases slightly, but remains narrowly within the acceptable health level. Cancer risks to the public would not increase above the acceptable level of regulatory concern. Cancer risks to the onsite worker would not increase, but would remain narrowly above the EPA default value.

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).

Mitigation measures, such as substituting less toxic solvents and chemicals or modification processes, are proposed to reduce or eliminate the emissions of all hazardous chemicals due to operations under the No Action alternative. Particular attention would be given to 1,1-dichloroethylene, 1,4-dioxane, arsenic, benzene, cadmium, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, chromium VI, epichlorohydrin, folpet, methylene chloride, nickel, 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 are described in more detail in appendix F. The methodology used in the assessment is described in section 4.1.9. A list of documents reviewed for applicable accident data is provided in table F.1.1-1. The potential impacts from accidents, ranging from high-consequence/low-probability to low-consequence/high-probability events, have been evaluated in terms of potential cancer fatalities that may result for noninvolved workers and the public. The risk of cancer fatalities has also been evaluated to provide an overall measure of accident impacts and is calculated by multiplying the accident annual frequency (or probability) of occurrence by the consequences (number of cancer fatalities). Figure 4.7.3.9-1 shows the risk of latent cancer fatalities in the population within 80 km (50 mi) that may result from accidents for the alternatives. Specifically, the curve in the figure shows the probability (vertical axis) that the number of cancer fatalities in the offsite population within 80 km (50 mi) (horizontal axis) will be exceeded. The curve does show the probability of the accident.

In addition to the potential impacts to noninvolved workers and the offsite population, there are potential impacts to involved workers who would be located in the facilities associated with the proposed action. Quantitative statements of these impacts cannot be made until design details are developed further, at which time the number and location of facility workers protective and mitigating features can be estimated to support detailed accident impact analyses. However, depending on the type of accident, facility workers in close proximity to the point of the accident could receive high levels of exposure to radiation with potentially fatal impacts.

No Action. Under the No Action alternative, stewardship would continue to be performed at LLNL with no changes to facilities and operations. Under existing conditions, potential accidents and their consequences have been addressed in facility safety documentation according to requirements in DOE orders.

Management Alternatives

Secondary and Case Fabrication . A set of potential accidents have been postulated for the secondary and case fabrication alternative for which there may be releases of radioactive materials or other hazardous effects that may impact onsite workers and the offsite population. The potential accidents analyzed are described in appendix F. The probability distribution showing the range of probable cancer fatalities that may result for the composite set of accidents identified in appendix F is shown in figure 4.7.3.9-1. For example, the probability of a secondary and case fabrication accident causing more than one cancer fatality is approximately 10^-6 per year. The curve reflects the probability of the accidents occurring. The impacts for the composite set of accidents and their consequences are shown in table 4.7.3.9-5. If an accident were to occur, there would be an estimated 0.063 cancer fatalities in the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the site. A noninvolved worker located 247 m (810 ft) (site boundary) from the accident would have an increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 1.5x10^-4 . A maximally exposed individual located at the site boundary would have an increased likelihood of cancer fatality of 1.8x10^-4 . The risks for the combined EBA and BEBA composite set of accidents, reflecting both the probability of the accident occurring and the consequences, are also shown in table 4.7.3.9-5. For the same worker, maximally exposed individual and population, the risks are 8.9x¹⁰

High Explosives Fabrication. A set of potential accidents have been postulated for the HE fabrication alternative for which there may be hazardous effects that could impact onsite workers and the offsite population. The potential accidents analyzed are described in appendix F. The chemical impacts of the accidents are shown in table 4.7.3.9-7. The threshold limit value-time weighted average (TLV-TWA) limits represent a time-weighted average limit to a worker for a 40-hour work week. Exposures exceeding these limits could result in a suite of symptoms including liver damage, cyanosis, sore throat, muscular pain, kidney damage, and anemia. Note that the toxic exposures considered here are of a much shorter duration, on the order of minutes.

Table 4.7.3.9-5.--Impacts of Accidents for Secondary and Case Fabrication at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Table 4.7.3.9-6.-- Impacts of Chemical Accidents for Secondary and Case Fabrication at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Table 4.7.3.9-7.--Accident Impacts for High Explosives Fabrication at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

In addition to the chemical accident impacts, the potential for physical effects from a catastrophic explosion of the entire contents of a process-related building, which would have a probability of occurrence less than the explosion considered above (i.e., less than 1.0x10^-6 per year), was also considered. The quantity of HE detonated could range up to 18 t (19.8 tons); the blast pressure could result in death (up to 40 m [131 ft]), lung damage (80 m [262 ft]), thoracic injury (130 m [427 ft]), and eardrum rupture (160 m [525 ft]) depending on an individual's distance from the accident. Injuries could also result from glass breakage and building debris

Nonnuclear Fabrication. The impacts of potential accidents associated with nonnuclear fabrication activities at LLNL were previously addressed in Nonnuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment (DOE/EA-0792, June 1993) where it was determined that the then current accident profile would not change as a result of the relocation of nonnuclear fabrication functions to LLNL. The present proposed action to transfer the nonnuclear fabrication mission to LLNL is not expected to change the accident profile that presently exists at the site.

Stewardship Alternatives

Proposed National Ignition Facility . Studies of potential accidents associated with the proposed NIF have been performed. A bounding accident was postulated based on a preliminary hazard analysis. The bounding accident assumes a severe earthquake of 1 g horizontal ground acceleration occurring during a maximum-credible-yield fusion experiment. Beamlines leaking into the target chamber and building structures other than the target area building would fail during the postulated earthquake. The collapsed beamlines and building structures would provide a pathway for acute atmospheric releases of tritium in the tritium processing system, activated gases in the air, and activated material in the target chamber.

The frequency of this severe earthquake is estimated at 1x10^-4 per year. The joint frequency of the severe earthquake during the maximum-credible-yield fusion experiment would be less than 2x10^-8 per year. The radiological impacts of the accident, presented in table 4.7.3.9-8, were estimated using the GENII computer code.

Proposed Contained Firing Facility . Studies of potential accidents associated with the proposed CFF have been performed. The reasonably foreseeable accident scenarios that could produce the greatest potential impacts are the following:

Table 4.7.3.9-8.-- Consequences and Risk of the Bounding Proposed National Ignition Facility Accident at the Livermore Site

• Scenario 1: Accidental detonation of a test of a 60-kg (132-lb) charge of explosives at the B801 firing table. (Applicable to the No Action alternative.)
• Scenario 2: Accidental detonation of a 60-kg (132-lb) test that could contain up to 20 mg (200 curies) of tritium with dispersal through an unsecured blast door during final preparation. No neutron generation potential would exist because blast doors would be closed before any accident scenario that would involve neutron generation (misfire). (Applicable to either B801 or B851 alternatives.)

One beyond design basis accident configuration is considered as follows:

• Scenario 3: Same test configuration as Scenario 2, but the planned detonation takes place yielding the potential for neutron generation: accidental rupture of the CFF Firing Chamber occurs. (Applicable to either B801 or B851 alternatives.)

The impacts to involved workers for each accident scenario would probably be fatal injuries from blast effects due to peak overpressure and debris, but there would be no injury offsite to members of the public. No damage to current buildings offsite or in other areas of Site 300 would be expected. Projected radiation effects for the three scenarios are shown in table 4.7.3.9-9.

Table 4.7.3.9-9.-- Accident Radiation-Related Impacts for the Proposed Contained Firing Facility at Site 300

4.7.3.10 Waste Management

This section summarizes the impacts on waste management at the Livermore Site and Site 300 under No Action and for each of the stockpile stewardship and management alternatives. There is no spent nuclear fuel, HLW, or TRU waste associated with secondary and case fabrication, HE fabrication, nonnuclear fabrication, the proposed CFF, or the proposed NIF; therefore, there is no further discussion of these wastes at LLNL. Table 4.7.3.10-1 lists the projected waste generation rates and treatment, storage, and disposal capacities under No Action for the Livermore Site. Table 4.7.3.10-2 lists the projected waste generation rates and treatment, storage, and disposal capacities under No Action for Site 300. Projections for No Action were derived from 1994 environmental data, with the appropriate adjustments made for those changing operational requirements where the volume of wastes generated is identifiable. The projection does not include wastes from future, as yet uncharacterized, environmental restoration activities.

Table 4.7.3.10-3 provides the total estimated operational waste volumes projected to be generated at LLNL as a result of the secondary and case fabrication, nonnuclear fabrication, and the proposed NIF alternatives. Table 4.7.3.10-4 provides the total estimated operational waste volumes projected to be generated at Site 300 as a result of the HE fabrication and proposed CFF alternatives. The net increase or decrease over No Action is provided in the table in parentheses. The waste volumes generated from the various alternatives and the resultant waste effluent used in the impact analysis can be found in table 3.4.4.4-3 for secondary and case fabrication, table 3.4.2.4-3 for nonnuclear fabrication, table 3.4.5.4-3 for HE fabrication, table 3.3.2.2-3 for NIF, and table 3.3.1.2-3 for CFF. Facilities that would support the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program would treat and package all waste generated into forms that would enable long-term storage and/or disposal in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act, RCRA, and other applicable statutes as outlined in appendix section H.1.2.

Table 4.7.3.10-1.-- Projected Waste Management Under No Action at the Livermore Site

Table 4.7.3.10-2.--Projected Waste Management Under No Action at Site 300

Table 4.7.3.10-3.--Estimated Annual Generated Waste Volumes for Stockpile Stewardship and Management Alternatives at the Livermore Site

Table 4.7.3.10-4.-- Estimated Generated Waste Volumes for Stockpile Stewardship and Management Alternatives at Site 300

No Action. Under No Action, TRU, low-level, mixed, hazardous, and nonhazardous wastes would continue to be generated at LLNL from the missions outlined in section 3.2.7. LLNL would continue to treat, store, and dispose of its legacy and newly generated wastes in current and planned facilities.

Liquid LLW would be neutralized and solidified and the treated wastewater discharged to the city of Livermore sanitary sewer. Solid LLW would be compacted, packaged, and stored for shipment to NTS. Hazardous waste would be packaged and shipped offsite to RCRA-permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Liquid mixed waste would undergo neutralization/pH adjustment, oxidation/reduction, precipitation, chelation/flocculation, and filtration in the Area 514 Wastewater Treatment Tank Farm, Area 514 Wastewater Filtration Unit, and Building 513 Solidification Unit. Both liquid and solid mixed waste would be treated and disposed of according to the LLNL Site Treatment Plan, which was developed pursuant to the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. The resulting waste would then be stored in a RCRA-permitted facility in DOT-approved containers until it is shipped to an offsite DOE disposal facility. Some of this waste would be placed in interim storage until new technologies for treatment and disposal are identified and evaluated. Liquid nonhazardous sanitary wastes would be pretreated and discharged to the city of Livermore sanitary sewer system. Solid nonhazardous sanitary waste would be disposed of in a permitted offsite sanitary landfill sized to handle projected future waste volumes.

Under No Action, low-level, mixed, hazardous, and nonhazardous wastes would continue to be generated at Site 300 from the missions outlined in section 3.2.7. Site 300, in conjunction with LLNL, would continue to treat, store, and dispose of its legacy and newly generated wastes in current and planned facilities.

LLNL does not anticipate the future generation of mixed waste at Site 300. If mixed waste is generated at Site 300, the mixed waste would be limited to storage periods of 90 days or less. The mixed waste would then be taken either to LLNL for treatment and/or long-term storage or sent to commercial facilities for treatment and/or disposal. Site 300 LLW, including the gravel from firing table operations, would be packaged in approved waste containers and transported to Building 804 for staging, pending shipment to LLNL or shipment directly to NTS for disposal. Site 300 would hold hazardous waste before it is transferred to the Area 612 facility at LLNL for treatment, storage, and disposal or send it directly offsite to RCRA-permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Sanitary wastewater generated within the General Services Area at Site 300 would be discharged to an onsite sewer lagoon. Other more remotely located buildings on Site 300 would be serviced by septic systems and leach fields. Site 300 industrial wastewaters would be contained in retention tanks and analyzed to determine their proper disposition. These wastewaters could be shipped to LLNL for treatment and discharged to the sanitary sewer system or shipped directly to an offsite treatment and disposal facility. Solid waste generated at Site 300 would be transported to a permitted offsite sanitary landfill.

Management Alternatives

Livermore Site

Secondary and Case Fabrication . The Secondary and Case Fabrication Facility would not generate any TRU waste. Following treatment and volume reduction, 304 m³ (398 yd³ ) of solid LLW would be packaged in approved waste containers for staging, pending shipment directly to NTS for disposal. With no onsite LLW disposal capability, LLNL would require approximately 18 additional LLW shipments per year to NTS. Assuming a land usage factor of 6,000 m³ /ha (3,180 yd³ /acres), 0.05 ha/yr (0.13 acres/yr) of LLW disposal area at NTS would be required.

The LLNL Site Treatment Plan for mixed waste was developed pursuant to the Federal Facility Compliance Act. The mixed waste streams identified at LLNL have been combined into 10 treatability groups, each with a preferred treatment option. The type of mixed wastes generated by secondary and case fabrication would fit into one of the established 10 treatability groups and would not require the creation of new treatability groups or new preferred treatment options. The 550 m3 (145,000 gal) annual generation of liquid mixed wastes and 12 m³ (16 yd³ ) annual generation of solid mixed wastes may impact the available storage capacity of the main areas for future mixed waste storage in RCRA-permitted hazardous waste management units. Existing and planned mixed waste treatment at LLNL would be adequate to handle the increased volume. Additional staging capacity for 540 m3 (143,000 gal) of liquid and 18 m3 (24 yd3) of solid hazardous wastes while awaiting shipment to offsite RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facilities may be needed. Minimal impacts would result from the 102,000 m³ (26.9 million gal) of liquid nonhazardous sanitary waste, which would be collected and routed to the sanitary and industrial waste treatment plant prior to discharge to the city of Livermore sanitary sewer system. Minimum impacts would result from the 4,320 m³ (5,650 yd³ ) of solid nonhazardous sanitary waste that would be disposed of in offsite industrial and sanitary landfills.

Nonnuclear Fabrication . The Nonnuclear Fabrication Facility would not generate any TRU waste, LLW, or mixed LLW. The generation of 7 m³ (1,950 gal) of liquid hazardous wastes would have a small impact on LLNL's waste management infrastructure. The toluene/methanol waste stream would be recycled by distillation. The distillation bottoms (0.2 m³ [0.26 yd³ ]) would be shipped offsite to a RCRA-permitted disposal facility as solid hazardous waste. The remaining 3 m³ (905 gal) of liquid hazardous waste would be staged in the onsite hazardous waste accumulation area and shipped to offsite RCRA-permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Minimal impacts would result from the 5,770 m³ (1,530,000 gal) of liquid sanitary waste that would be collected and routed to the sanitary and industrial waste treatment plant. Minimal impacts would result from the 64 m³ (83 yd³ ) of solid nonhazardous sanitary waste that would be disposed of in offsite industrial and sanitary landfills after volume reduction.

Site 300

High Explosives Fabrication . The HE Fabrication Facility at Site 300 would not generate any TRU or mixed LLW. Minimal to zero quantities of LLW would be generated. If generated, these wastes would be packaged in approved waste containers and transported to Building 804 for staging, pending shipment to LLNL, or they would be shipped directly to NTS for disposal. Minimal impacts would result from the 3 m³ (920 gal) of liquid hazardous waste and 54 m³ (70 yd³ ) of solid hazardous waste, which could be staged in the onsite hazardous waste accumulation area up to 1year before being shipped to LLNL or to offsite commercial RCRA-permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Existing infrastructure should be able to handle the 7,270 m³ (1,920,000 gal) of liquid sanitary waste. Minimal impacts would result from the 55 m³ (72 yd³ ) of solid nonhazardous sanitary waste that would be disposed of in offsite industrial and sanitary landfills.

Sensitivity Analysis. The waste volumes generated from the secondary and case, nonnuclear, and HE fabrication facilities required to support a larger stockpile level (high case) operating on a single-shift basis are bounded by the base case under surge operations. There would be no additional waste management impacts associated with these fabrication facilities that would support a high case stockpile operating at a single shift. The volumes generated from these fabrication facilities required to support a low case stockpile would be reduced by a factor of at least three.

Stewardship Alternatives

Livermore Site

Proposed National Ignition Facility . The proposed NIF would not generate any TRU waste. The 0.7 m³ (185 gal) of liquid LLW could be batch treated in the Area 514 Wastewater Treatment Tank Farm with minimal impact. The 3 m³ (4 yd³ ) of solid LLW would be packaged in approved waste containers and staged, pending shipment directly to NTS for disposal. Assuming a land usage factor of 6,000 m³ /ha (3,180 yd³ /acres), less than 0.0005 ha/yr (0.001 acres/yr) of LLW disposal area at NTS would be required.

The LLNL Site Treatment Plan for mixed waste was developed pursuant to the Federal Facility Compliance Act. The mixed waste streams identified at LLNL have been combined into 10 treatability groups, each with a preferred treatment option. The type of mixed wastes generated by NIF would fit into one of the established 10 treatability groups and would not require the creation of new treatability groups or new preferred treatment options. The annual generation of 2 m³ (528 gal) of liquid and 0.3 m³ (0.4 yd³ ) of solid mixed wastes would have a negligible impact on the available storage capacity of the main areas for future mixed waste storage in RCRA-permitted hazardous waste management units. Minimal impacts would result from the 2 m³ (528 gal) of liquid hazardous waste and 8 m³ (10 yd³ ) of solid hazardous waste, which would be staged in the onsite hazardous waste accumulation area and shipped to offsite commercial RCRA-permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Additional sanitary wastewater treatment capacity may be required to accommodate the 17,900 m³ (4.72 million gal) of liquid nonhazardous sanitary waste that would be routed to sanitary wastewater treatment facilities prior to discharge to existing municipal sanitary wastewater systems. Minimal impacts would result from the 6,050 m3 (7,910 yd³ ) of solid nonhazardous sanitary waste that would be disposed of in offsite industrial and sanitary landfills after volume reduction.

Site 300

Proposed Contained Firing Facility . The proposed CFF would not generate any TRU waste. CFF would reduce the annual generation of solid LLW from the No Action alternative by 16 m³ (21 yd³ ). The 90 m³ (117 yd³ ) of solid LLW from CFF would be packaged in approved waste containers and staged, pending shipment directly to NTS for disposal. Six LLW shipments per year to NTS and 0.016 ha/yr (0.04 acres/yr) of LLW disposal area at NTS would be required.

The LLNL Site Treatment Plan for mixed waste was developed to comply with the Federal Facility Compliance Act. The mixed waste streams identified at LLNL have been combined into 10 treatability groups, each with a preferred treatment option. The type of mixed wastes generated by CFF would fit into one of the established 10 treatability groups and would not require the creation of new treatability groups or new preferred treatment options. The 10 m³ (14 yd³ ) annual generation of solid mixed waste would have a negligible impact on the available storage capacity of the main areas for future mixed waste storage in RCRA-permitted hazardous waste management units.

CFF would reduce the generation of solid hazardous wastes by 4 m³ (5 yd³) from the No Action alternative. The 6-m3 (1,560-gal) increase in the generation of liquid hazardous wastes would have a minimal impact. Hazardous wastes would be stored in the onsite hazardous waste accumulation area and shipped to offsite commercial RCRA-permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. The additional 284 m³ (75,000 gal) of liquid sanitary wastes would have a negligible impact on the existing sanitary wastewater system. Negligible impacts would also result from the 13 m3 (17 yd³ ) of additional solid sanitary wastes.

Combined Program Impacts

Livermore Site. If all the stockpile stewardship and management alternatives listed in table 4.7.3.10-3 were located at the Livermore Site, the impacts from LLW, mixed LLW, and hazardous wastes would be similar to those discussed for the secondary and case fabrication alternative. The 126,000 m3 (33.2 million gal) of liquid sanitary wastes would not be expected to impact the sanitary wastewater treatment system, as adequate capacity exists to handle this increase. After volume reduction, approximately 10,400 m3 (13,600 yd3) of solid sanitary waste would require disposal. This increase could require the construction of a new sanitary landfill sooner than currently planned.

Site 300. If all the stockpile stewardship and management alternatives listed in table 4.7.3.10-4 were located at Site 300, the impacts from LLW, and mixed LLW would be identical to those identified for the CFF alternative. The impacts from hazardous and nonhazardous wastes would be similar to the HE fabrication alternative.

Potential Mitigation Measures . Waste quantities or waste forms could undergo additional reductions by utilizing emerging technologies, thereby further reducing or mitigating waste and waste management impacts. Pollution prevention and waste minimization would be considered in determining the final actions of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program at the Livermore Site and Site 300.

4.7.3.11 Environmental Justice

As discussed in section 4.14, any impacts to surrounding communities would most likely result from toxic or hazardous air pollutants and radiological emissions. Section 4.7.3.9, which describes public and occupational health impacts from normal operation, shows that potential chemical air emissions and releases narrowly exceed the generally accepted threshold of regulatory concern. This information is based on the conservative programmatic assumptions and modeling detailed in appendix E. Any adverse human health or environmental impacts that may occur would affect people living within communities located near LLNL. The analysis of the demographic data presented in appendix D for the communities surrounding LLNL indicates that if there were any adverse health impacts to these communities, they would not appear to disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations.

1 Federal standard.

2 State standard or guideline.

3 No monitoring data available, concentration assumed less than applicable standard/threshold value.

4 San Francisco Bay Area Quality Management District ambient concentration guide.

5 No standard. Source: 40 CFR 50; CA EPA 1993a; LLNL 1995e; LLNL 1995f; LLNL 1995i:1; appendix I.

6 CFF air emissions are addressed in appendix J.

7 Federal standard.

8 State standard or guideline.

9 No monitoring data available, concentration assumed less than applicable standard/threshold value.

10 San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District ambient concentration guide.

11 No standard. Source: 40 CFR 50, CA EPA 1993a; LLNL 1995i:1; LLNL 1995j; appendix J.

12 Total water requirements for construction at the Livermore Site are based on a 3-year period for secondary and case fabrication, a 5-year period for nonnuclear fabrications, and a 5-year period for NIF.

13 No construction water would be used or construction wastewater generated. Total site water use and wastewater discharged would be the same as No Action operation.

14 NPDES permit is required for stormwater discharges. NA - not applicable; MLY - million liters per year Source: .LLNL 1995e; LLNL 1995f; LLNL 1995i:1; appendix I.

15 Total water requirements for construction at Site 300 are based on a 1-year time period for HE fabrication and a 2-year time period for CFF.

16 No construction water would be used or construction wastewater generated. Total site water use and wastewater discharged would be the same as No Action operation.

17 NPDES permit is required for stormwater. NA - not applicable; MLY - million liters per year. Source: LLNL 1995i:1; LLNL 1995j; appendix J.

18 Conservative assumption poses existence of maximally exposed individual at multiple locations simultaneously.

19 Includes impacts from No Action.

20 The applicable radiological limits for an individual member of the public from total site operations are 10 mrem/yr from the air pathways, 4 mrem/yr from the drinking water pathway, and 100 mrem/yr from all pathways combined (DOE Order 5400.5).

21 Natural background radiation levels to average individual is 300 mrem/yr; to the population within 80 km (50 mi) in 2030 it is 2,353,000 person-rem. Source: LLNL 1994a; LLNL 1995c; appendix I.

22 Conservative assumption poses existence of maximally exposed individual at multiple locales simultaneously.

23 Includes impacts from No Action.

24 The applicable radiological limits for an individual member of the public from total site operations are 10 mrem/yr from the air pathways, 4 mrem/yr from the drinking water pathway, and 100 mrem/yr from all pathways combined (DOE Order 5400.5).

25 Natural background radiation levels: to average individual is 300 mrem/yr; to the population within 80 km (50 mi) in 2030 it is 2,353,000 person-rem. Source: LLNL 1994a; appendix J.

26 The involved worker is a worker associated with operation of the secondary and case fabrication or NIF. The dose presented for the involved workforce is only that incremental dose received from the secondary and case fabrication mission or NIF. The total dose received by the involved workforce would be higher than that received by the noninvolved workforce from these operations. The estimated number of involved workers is 250 for secondary and case fabrication and 267 for NIF.

27 The radiological limit for an individual worker is 5,000 mrem/yr (10 CFR 835).

28 The noninvolved worker is an onsite worker onsite but not associated with operation of the secondary and case fabrication or NIF facilities. The estimated number of noninvolved workers at the Livermore Site is 8,200 for secondary and case fabrication, and for NIF.

29 The total site workforce is the sum of the number of involved and noninvolved workers. The estimated number of badged workers in the total site workforce at the Livermore Site is 8,200 for No Action, 8,467 for NIF, and 8,450 for secondary and case fabrication. NA - not applicable. DOE 1993n:7; LLNL 1995c; appendix I.

30 The involved worker is a worker associated with operation of CFF. The estimated number of involved workers is three for the proposed CFF.

31 The radiological limit for an individual worker is 5,000 mrem/yr (10 CFR 835). The average worker is assumed to receive the same dose at Site 300 as at the Livermore Site complex.

32 The noninvolved worker is an onsite worker not associated with operation of CFF. The estimated number of noninvolved workers at Site 300 is 200.

33 The total site workforce is the sum of the number of involved and noninvolved workers. The estimated number of badged workers in the total site workforce at Site 300 is 203. NA - not applicable. DOE 1993n:7; appendix J.

34 Probability (increased likelihood) of cancer fatality to hypothetical member of the public located at the site boundary or to a noninvolved worker if the accident occurred as a result of exposure to the indicated dose.

35 For the offsite population of 7,843,061, the average probability of cancer fatality/risk of cancer fatality (per year) for the combined EBA and BEBA is 8.0 x10^-9 /4.8x10^-13 for the listed alternative.

36 Number of cancer fatalities in the population out to 80 km (50 mi) as a result of exposure to the indicated dose if the accident occurs. All values are mean values; BEBA - beyond evaluation basis accidents; EBA - evaluation basis accidents. Results shown are derived from model accident analyses.

37 From facility (downwind); exceedance begins at facility, 0 meters, unless indicated otherwise.

38 Offsite individuals exposed to concentration exceeding limit. IDLH - immediately dangerous to life or health; TLV - threshold limit value; STEL - short-term exposure limit; TWA - time-weighted average. Derived from accident analyses (see appendix F).

39 NIOSH 1990a.

40 From facility (downwind); exceedance begins at facility, 0 meters, unless indicated otherwise.

41 Offsite individual exposed to concentration exceeding limit.

42 Individual at 560 meters from boundary (individual at boundary is exposed to concentrations of roughly 3 times lower). TLV - threshold limit value; TWA - time-weighted average; TATB - triaminotrinitrobenzene; TNT - trinitrotoluene. Derived from accident analyses (see appendix F).

43 Data not available. Source: Appendix J.

44 Reported as 7,082 U.S. short tons. For analysis, 1,500 kg/m3 was assumed. NA - not applicable. Source: LLNL 1995i:1.

45 HE wastes only. Up to a total of 340 kg (750 lb) of HE pieces, parts, and powders or 340 kg (750 lb) of sludge from HE-contaminated rinsewaters settling tanks or 907 kg (2,000 lb) of HE-contaminated materials such as kimwipes. NA - not applicable. LLNL 1995i:1; LLNL 1996i:2.

46 No Action volumes are from table 4.7.3.10-1.

47 Volumes for secondary and case fabrication are from table 3.4.4.4-3 and are based on surge operations (three shifts).

48 Volumes for nonnuclear fabrication are from table 3.4.2.4-3 are based on surge operations (three shifts).

49 Volumes for NIF are from table 3.3.2.2-3 and are based on the Conceptual Design.

50 Medical wastes.

51 Includes recyclable and medical wastes. Note: Waste generation volumes were rounded to three significant figures. Waste effluent volumes are found in sections 3.3 and 3.4.

52 No Action volumes are from table 4.7.3.10-2 and are based on 50 tests per year at the current B801 Complex.

53 Volumes for HE fabrication are from table 3.4.5.4-3 and are based on surge operations (three shifts).

54 Volumes for CFF are from table 3.3.1.2-3 and are based on 100 tests per year. Wastes generated from the B801 Complex, appendix table J.5.2.2-1, were subtracted since this facility would not operate if CFF was constructed.

55 Medical waste. Waste generation volumes were rounded to three significant figures. Waste effluent volumes are found in sections 3.3 and 3.4.