DOE/EIS-O 133-D DRAFT ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT STATEMENT Decontamina tion and Waste Treatment Facility for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, California JUNE 1988 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OOE/EIS-O 133-0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, California JUNE 1988 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DOE/EIS-0133-D COVER SHEET DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DECONTAM INATION AND WASTE TREATMENT FACIL ITY, LAWRENCE LIVERM ORE NATIONAL LABOPATORY, LIVERMORE, CALI FORNIA a) Lead Agency : U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) b) Proposed Action: to construct and operate a Decontami nation and Waste Treatment Facil ity (DWTF ) for nonradioactive (hazardous and nonhazardous). mixed. and radioact ive wastes at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory . c) For additional co.pies or further information on this stat ement and pro­ gr am. please cont act : Mr. 1iJilliam Holman Envi ronmental Branch Environment. Safety and Quality As surance Division Department of Energy San Franci sco Operations Office 1333 Broadway Oakland . California 94612 Telephone : (415) 273-6370 For general information on DOE's Environment al Impact Stat ement (EIS ) process. please contact : Ms . Carol M. Borgstrom U.S. Department of Energy Office of NEPA Proj ect As sistance 1000 Independence Av enue. SW Washington. DC 20585 Telephone : (202) 586-4600 d) Designation: Draft EIS (DEIS) i DOE/E IS-0 133-D e) Ab stract This statement assesses the environmental impact s of alternatives proposed for the management of waste generated by the Lawrence Livermore Na tional Laboratory (LLNL) . The four primary waste management strategy alternatives that were initially evaluated are : 1) no action (i. e. , continued use of the present haz ardous waste management (HWM] facili­ ties), 2) increased off-site treatment and disposal , 3) upgrading the existing on-site HWM facilities. and 4) development of new on-site treatment and storage facilities. Upgrading existing HWM facilities and the increased use of off-site treatment and disposal facilities were found to be unfeasible alternatives. The development of new on-site facilitie s was considered the most reasonable strategy and consists of two design alternatives and three site alternatives in the LLNL area. The environmental effects of the reasonable alternatives and the no­ action alternative are evaluated relative to seismicity and to construc­ tion and operation impact s for soils, hydrology. air quality , occupa­ tional and public health, vegetat ion and wildlife. socioeconomics and land use, noise, transportation, and cultural resources. The preferred alternative is to construct and operate the most versatile design at the best available site (i.e. , a Level II facility at Site D) . f) Public comments on the DE IS mu st be received by DOE no later than 45 calendar days after a Notice of Av ailability is published in the Federal Register. After consideration of public comments on the DEIS, a Final EIS (FE IS) will be prepared. A Record of Decision will be published in the Federal Register no sooner than 30 days after issuanca of the Notice of Av ailability for the FE IS. ii FOREWORD This Draft Environment al Impact Statement (DEIS) is issued by the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE ) in ac cordance with the Na tional Environment al Policy Ac t of 1969 (NEPA) . as implemented by the regulations promulgated by the Council on Environment al Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1500- 1508. November 1978) and DOE's implement ing guidelines (45 FR 20695. March 28. 1980. as amended through April 25 . 1986. 51 FR 15625 ). A No tice of Intent to prepare this DE IS was issued March 18. 1987 . and a public scoping meeting to de termine the maj or issues and scope of the DEI S was held on April 30. 1987 . DOE has prepared this DEIS to provide environment al input to the decision on the proposal to construct and operate a Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility (DWTF) for nonradioactive (hazardous and nonhazardous). mixed. and ra dioactive wastes generated by Lawrence Livermore Na tional Laboratory (LLNL ) programs . The DWTF would replace the existing Hazardous Waste Management ( HWM ) facilities located in the southeast corner of LLNL . After considering al l comments on this DE IS. DOE will issue a Final EIS (FEIS). DOE will then issue a Record of Decision. stating the Department 's decision regarding this proposal and identifying all alternatives cons idered. no sooner than 30 days after issuance of the FEI S. Chapter 1.0 documents the purpose and need for the DWTF. Chapter 2.0 summarizes and compares alternatives and predicted environmental impacts. Chapter 3.0 summarizes the affected environment . Chapter 4.0 provides detailed information on analyses of the environment al consequences of the various alternatives considered. Chapter 5.0 presents the environmental permits. regulations. and approvals associated with the DWTF. Chapter 6.0 lists the references used to prepare this DEI S. Chapter 7.0 presents a glossary of terms used in this document . Chapter 8.0 presents the name s and professional qualifications of the persons responsible for preparing the statement . Chapter 9.0 contains the mail ing list of persons and organizations who wil l receive a copy of this DEIS. iii [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] TAB LE OF CONTENTS Chapter COVER SHEET . i FOREWORD iii TABLE OF CONTENTS. • . • . v LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS • XV�� SUMMARY•..•• xxi 1.0 PURPO SE AND NEED FOR THE PROPO SED ACT ION. • 1 1. 1 Purpose of the Proposed Action . 1 1.2 Need for Action. • • .••• 1 1. 2. 1 Introduction 1 1. 2. 2 Waste Quantities from LLNL Operations • • 3 1.2.3 Need for a Central ized Decontamination and Waste Treatment Facility at LLNL. • • . • • . • • •• 7 2.0 DE SCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES . 11 2.1 Introduction ••. 11 2.2 No Action •. 13 2.2. 1 Existing Decontamination Facility . 13 2.2.2 Existing Liquid Waste Treatment Facility •• 16 2.2.3 Existing Waste Processing Facility. • 16 2.2.4 Existing Incinerator •• 17 2.2.5 S 1.llIl.mB.ry • • • . • • • • 18 2.3 Increasing Off-Site Waste Treatment and Disposal at Existing Commercial and DOE Facil ities • 19 2.3.1 Commercial Treatment and Disposal Fa cilities. 19 2.3.2 DOE Facilities. • • • •. 26 2.3.3 Summary ••••• 26 2.4 Upgrading the Existing HWM Facil ities. 27 2.4.1 Existing Facility Modifications . 28 2.4. 2 Existing HWM Site 29 2.4.3 Summary ••••• 30 v TABLE OF CONTENT S (C ontinued) Chapter 2.5 Devel oping New On-Site Facilities. 31 2 . 5 . 1 Summary • . • • . • • . • • . 31 2.6 Comparison of Al ternative Hazardous Waste Management Strategies •..•. 32 2.7 Al ternative Sites. 35 2.8 Al ternative Designs ••...••• 38 2.8.1 Level II Design . • ••• 39 2.8.1.1 Solid Waste Proces sing and Waste Receiving/Classification Building. 39 2.8.1.2 Boiler/Chiller Area •...•.. 42 2.8.1.3 Liquid Waste Processing Area 43 2.8. 1.4 Incineration Area. • . 48 2.8.1.5 Decontamination Ar ea . 54 2.8.1.6 Radioactive Wa ste/Clean Storage Building 57 2.8.1. 7 Reactive Materials Building. 59 2.8. 1.8 Operational Support Building . • . 60 2.8.1.9 Electrical Substation/Standby Power. 62 2.8.2 Level I Design . 62 2.8.3 Engineered Safety Features. 64 2.9 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Design Alternatives •••. 66 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT . • • • • • • • • • • • . 73 3.1 Site Location and Characteristics ••••. 73 3.1.1 Location •••• . 73 3.1 .2 Characteristics . 76 3.2 Geolog y. Soil s. and Seismology • • • • • • 76 3.2. 1 Geology . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •. 76 3 • 2. 1. 1 S t rat i gr a p hy • • • • . 7 6 3.2. 1.1. 1 Regional Stratigraphy . • . .• 76 3.2.1 . 1.2 Stratigraphy of the Al ternative Sites . • • 0 � • • 78 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued ) Chapter 3.2. 1. 2 Structure. 79 3.2. 1.2.1 Regional Structure. 79 3.2.1 .2.2 Structur e of the Al ternative Sites 79 3.2.2 Soil s . 82 3.2.2.1 Soils at the Alternative Sites • 82 3.2.3 Seismology 82 3.2. 3.1 Seismology at the Al ternative Sites. 86 3.3 Hy drol ogy. • . 90 3.3.1 Surface Water 90 3.3.1.1 Flood Potential . 92 3.3.1.2 Water Quality. 93 3.3.2 Ground Water 94 3.3.2.1 Ground Water at the Al ternative Sites. 96 3.4 Clima te. Meteorology. and Air Qual ity . 99 3.4.1 Climate • • • • 99 3.4.2 Me teorology • . • • • • • • • • • 100 3.4.3 Air Quality • • • • • 102 3.4.3.1 Criteria Pollutants. 102 3.4.3.2 Other Monitored Pollutant s . 102 3.5 Vegetation and Wildl ife. • 108 3.5.1 Vegetation. 108 3.5.2 Wildlife •. 109 3.5.3 Endangered Species •• 110 3.5.4 Biological Impacts from Existing LLNL Radionuclide Releases. 110 3.6 Socioeconomics . 111 3.6.1 Demography. • ••••••• 111 3.6.1.1 Employment . 111 3.6.2 Publ ic Services ••• 113 3.6.2.1 Utilities •• 114 vii TAB LE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Chapter 3.7 Hazardous and Radioactive Waste Transportat ion . • • • •. 115 3.7.1 On-Site Transport . • • • • • • . 115 3.7.2 Off-Site Transport . • • •• 117 3.8 Land Use . • • • • • 119 3.8. 1 Ae sthetics. 122 3.8.2 Noise ••• . 122 3.9 Cultural Resources . 122 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CDNSEQUENCES. • • • • • 123 4. 1 Construction Activity Impacts •• 123 4.1.1 Impacts to Water Quality from Construction Activit ies •••• . .•••. 124 4. 1.2 Impacts to Air Quality from Construction Activities • • • • • • • • • 41 • • • 125 4.1.3 Site Preparation and Util ity Impacts •• 126 4.2 Operation Impacts and Mitigation Measures.