NNSA/EA-1375 

Environmental Assessment for Construction 

and Operation of a New Office Building and 

Related Structures within TA-3 at Los 

Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, 

New Mexico 

July 26, 2001 

Department of Energy 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

Los Alamos Area Office 

Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO July 26,, 2001 iii

Contents 

Acronyms and Terms .................................................................................................................. vi

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... ix

1.0 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 Background........................................................................................................................... 3 

1.3 Statement of Purpose and Need for Agency Action............................................................. 8 

1.4 Scope of this EA................................................................................................................... 8 

1.5 Public Involvement............................................................................................................... 9 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives............................................................. 11

2.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................. 11 

2.1.1 New Office Building and Site ..................................................................................... 16 

2.1.2 Parking Structure......................................................................................................... 20 

2.1.3 New Lecture Hall ........................................................................................................ 21 

2.1.4 Demolition of Building 3-43 ....................................................................................... 21 

2.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................ 22 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed.............................................................................. 22 

2.3.1 Use of Other Existing Space ....................................................................................... 22 

2.3.2 Building 3-43 Renovation ........................................................................................... 22 

2.4 Related Actions................................................................................................................... 23 

2.4.1 Final Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the 

Los Alamos National Laboratory................................................................................ 23 

2.4.2 TA-3 Revitalization Plan............................................................................................. 23 

2.4.2.1 Strategic Computing Complex............................................................................... 24 

2.4.2.2 Nonproliferation and International Security Center .............................................. 24 

2.4.3 Demolition of Vacated Buildings................................................................................ 25 

2.4.4 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Conveyance and Transfer of Certain 

Land Tracts Administered by the U.S. Department of Energy and Located at Los 

Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos and Santa Fe Counties, New Mexico (C&T 

EIS) ............................................................................................................................. 25 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .............................................. 27

3.1 Regional Setting ................................................................................................................. 27 

3.2 Potential Environmental Issues .......................................................................................... 28 

3.2.1 Transportation, Traffic, and Infrastructure.................................................................. 28 

3.2.1.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................ 28 

3.2.1.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 29 

3.2.1.3 No Action Alternative............................................................................................ 30 

3.2.2 Waste Management ..................................................................................................... 30 

3.2.2.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................ 30 

3.2.2.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 30 

3.2.2.3 No Action Alternative............................................................................................ 33 

3.2.3 Visual Resources ......................................................................................................... 33 

3.2.3.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................ 33 

3.2.3.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 33 

3.2.3.3 No Action Alternative............................................................................................ 34 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO July 26,, 2001 iv

3.2.4 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 34 

3.2.4.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................ 34 

3.2.4.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 35 

3.2.4.3 No Action Alternative............................................................................................ 35 

3.2.5 Geological Setting ....................................................................................................... 35 

3.2.5.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................ 35 

3.2.5.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 36 

3.2.5.3 No Action Alternative............................................................................................ 36 

3.2.6 Air Quality................................................................................................................... 36 

3.2.6.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................ 36 

3.2.6.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 37 

3.2.6.3 No Action Alternative............................................................................................ 38 

3.2.7 Human Health.............................................................................................................. 38 

3.2.7.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................ 38 

3.2.7.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 38 

3.2.7.3 No Action Alternative............................................................................................ 39 

3.2 8 Noise............................................................................................................................ 39 

3.2.8.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................ 39 

3.2.8.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 40 

3.2.8.3 No Action Alternative............................................................................................ 41 

3.2.9 Socioeconomic ............................................................................................................ 41 

3.2.9.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................ 41 

3.2.9.2 Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 41 

3.2.9.3 No Action Alternative............................................................................................ 42 

3.2.10 Water Quality ............................................................................................................ 42 

3.2.10.1 Affected Environment.......................................................................................... 42 

3.2.10.2 Proposed Action................................................................................................... 42 

3.2.10.3 No Action Alternative.......................................................................................... 43 

4.0 Accident Analysis................................................................................................................. 45

4.1 Construction and Demolition.............................................................................................. 45 

4.2 Transportation..................................................................................................................... 45 

4.3 Operations........................................................................................................................... 46 

5.0 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................... 47

5.1 LANL Operations at TA-3 ................................................................................................. 47 

5.2 Nearby Areas within LANL and Off-site Areas Administered by Others ......................... 49 

6.0 Agencies Consulted .............................................................................................................. 53

7.0 References............................................................................................................................. 55

Figures 

Figure 1 Location of Los Alamos National Laboratory ................................................................2 

Figure 2 TA-3 location map ..........................................................................................................4 

Figure 3a Existing Administration Building 3-43 (looking mostly east)........................................6 

Figure 3b Cramped and makeshift offices.......................................................................................7 

Figure 3c Exterior fire alarm panel and air conditioning units .......................................................7 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO v July 26,, 2001 

Figure 4 Conceptual rendering to show new structure and demolished areas relative to other 

 buildings within TA-3 ...................................................................................................12 

Figure 5 Proposed office building, parking structure, and lecture hall .......................................13 

Figure 6 Ongoing construction and demolition activities ...........................................................18 

Tables 

Table 1 Proposed Action Construction and Operations Chronology.........................................11 

Table 2 Parking Changes Chronology .......................................................................................15 

Table 3 Environmental Issues Considered.................................................................................27 

Table 4 Approximate Waste Management Type, Quantity, and Disposal Location..................32 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO vi July 26, 2001 

Acronyms and Terms 

ac acres 

BMPs best management practices 

C&T EIS Conveyance and Transfer 

Environmental Impact Statement 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

dB decibel 

dBA decibel scale with A-weighted 

frequency 

DOE (U.S.) Department of Energy 

EA environmental assessment 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ft feet 

ft2

 square feet 

FY fiscal year 

ha hectares 

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning 

JCNNM Johnson Controls Northern New 

Mexico 

km kilometers 

km2

 square kilometers 

LAAO Los Alamos Area Office 

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory 

LDCC Laboratory Data Communications 

Center 

m meters 

m2

 square meters 

m3 cubic meters 

mi miles 

mi2

 square miles 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NISC Nonproliferation and International 

Security Center 

NMED New Mexico Environment 

Department 

NNSA National Nuclear Security 

Administration 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

OEL Occupational Exposure Limit 

PL Public Law 

PRSs potential release sites 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

ROD Record of Decision 

SCC Strategic Computing Complex 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SWEIS Site-Wide Environmental Impact 

Statement 

SWPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention 

(Plan) 

TA technical area (at LANL) 

TRU transuranic 

UC University of California 

U.S. United States 

yd3

 cubic yards 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO vii July 26, 2001 

EXPONENTIAL NOTATION: Many values in the text and tables of this document are expressed in 

exponential notation. An exponent is the power to which the expression, or number, is raised. This form 

of notation is used to conserve space and to focus attention on comparisons of the order of magnitude of 

the numbers (Examples): 

1 × 104 = 10,000

1 × 102 = 100

1 × 100 = 1

1 × 10-2 = 0.01

1 × 10-4 = 0.0001

Metric Conversions Used in this Document 

Multiply By To Obtain 

Length 

inch (in.) 2.50 centimeters (cm) 

feet (ft) 0.30 meters (m) 

yards (yd) 0.91 meters (m) 

miles (mi) 1.61 kilometers (km) 

Area 

acres (ac) 0.40 hectares (ha) 

square feet (ft2) 0.09 square meters (m2) 

square yards (yd2) 0.84 square meters (m2) 

square miles (mi2) 2.59 square kilometers (km2) 

Volume 

gallons (gal.) 3.79 liters (L) 

cubic feet (ft3) 0.03 cubic meters (m3) 

cubic yards (yd3) 0.76 cubic meters (m3) 

Weight

ounces (oz) 29.60 milliliters (ml) 

pounds (lb) 0.45 kilograms (kg) 

short ton (ton) 0.91 metric ton (t) 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO viii July 26, 2001 

(This page intentionally left blank.) 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO ix July 26, 2001 

Executive Summary 

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has assigned a continuing role for Los 

Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in carrying out its national security mission. To continue 

this enduring responsibility requires that NNSA maintain the capability and capacity required to 

support its national mission assignments at LANL. One of the buildings that houses 

programmatic, management, and support functions essential to the overall LANL operations and 

nuclear weapons work performed for the United States Department of Energy and the NNSA1 is 

the Administration Building (Building 3-43) at Technical area (TA) 3. This building has many 

identified structural, systemic, and security problems associated with it. NNSA needs to correct 

these problems so that the necessary programmatic, management, and support functions housed 

within can continue to function at LANL with a high level of efficiency. Additionally, NNSA 

also needs to minimize, wherever possible, the use of energy and fiscal outlays for maintaining 

operations. 

The Proposed Action is to construct and operate the following within LANL’s TA-3: a 

multistoried office building to house about 700 personnel and their functions, which would move 

from Building 3-43; a one-storied lecture hall; and a separate multilevel parking structure. The 

Proposed Action would include the transfer of personnel and operations from the LANL Badge 

Office to existing space at LANL and the subsequent demolition of this building. When 

operations and personnel were completely removed from Building 3-43 to the new office 

building, the NNSA would demolish Building 3-43 as well. 

The No Action Alternative was also considered. Under this alternative, Building 3-43 would 

slowly be vacated, staff would be distributed to other existing offices or other temporary 

structures, and Building 3-43 would be left to deteriorate. This is not an alternative that meets 

NNSA’s purpose and need for action. 

The new office building, lecture hall, and parking structure are proposed for construction and 

operation in heavily developed areas within TA-3, which contains little or no suitable habitat for 

most plant and animal species. Traffic congestion in this area, particularly as a result of the 

development of the Research Park, would continue at TA-3. Parking availability in the TA-3 

area would increase with the addition of 400 new parking spaces as a result of the Proposed 

Action. Construction and demolition wastes would be trucked to a licensed commercial landfill 

or reused for backfilling on-site. The overall visual quality within TA-3 would change with the 

ongoing addition of new buildings in the area. The addition of the new office building, lecture 

hall, and parking structure would contribute further to the visual improvements in the TA-3 area 

by removing Building 3-43. Building 3-43 has been identified as an historic structure. A plan 

would be developed that would include research tools to preserve the historical knowledge and 

features of this Manhattan Project structure. 

 

1

 The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is a separately organized agency within the Department of 

Energy (DOE). It formally began operating on March 1, 2000. As part of the Defense Authorization Bill passed in 

September 1999, the NNSA was created to respond to significant security challenges at the DOE’s national 

laboratories and production and test facility. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO x July 26, 2001 

Cumulative effects of the Proposed Action, along with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions, on LANL and surrounding lands are anticipated to be negligible. No increase in LANL 

operations are anticipated as a result of this action. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 1 July 26, 2001 

1.0 Purpose and Need 

1.1 Introduction 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires federal agency officials to 

consider the environmental consequences of their Proposed Actions before decisions are made. 

In complying with NEPA, the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE), National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)2

, follows the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500–1508) and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). The purpose of an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) is to provide Federal decision makers with sufficient evidence and analysis to determine 

whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or issue a Finding of No Significant 

Impact. 

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is a national security laboratory located at Los 

Alamos, New Mexico (Figure 1), that comprises 43 square miles (mi2

) (111 square kilometers 

[km2

]) of buildings, structures, and forested land. It is managed and operated under contract by 

the University of California (UC) with direction, management, and oversight provided by 

NNSA. In this case, the NNSA decision to be made is whether to replace the existing 

Administration Building (Building 3-43) at LANL’s Technical Area (TA) 3 by constructing and 

operating a multistoried office building together with a lecture hall within the same TA. The 

project would also include the construction and operation of a multi-level parking structure 

nearby and the demolition of Building 3-43. 

The objectives of this EA are to (1) describe the underlying purpose and need for NNSA action; 

(2) describe the Proposed Action and identify and describe any reasonable alternatives that 

satisfy the purpose and need for agency action; (3) describe baseline environmental conditions at 

LANL; (4) analyze the potential indirect, direct, and cumulative effects to the existing 

environment from implementation of the Proposed Action, and (5) compare the effects of the 

Proposed Action with the No Action Alternative and any other reasonable alternatives. For the 

purposes of compliance with NEPA, reasonable alternatives are identified as being those that 

meet NNSA’s purpose and need for action by virtue of timeliness, appropriate technology, and 

applicability to LANL. The EA process provides NNSA with environmental information that 

can be used in developing mitigative actions, if necessary, to minimize or avoid adverse effects 

to the quality of the human environment and natural ecosystems should NNSA decide to proceed 

with implementing the construction and operation of an office building and other structures at 

LANL. Ultimately, the goal of NEPA and this EA is to aid NNSA officials in making decisions 

based on an understanding of environmental consequences and taking actions that protect, 

restore, and enhance the environment. 

 

2

 See footnote Page ix. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 2 July 26, 2001 

RIO ARRIBA COUNTY

SANTA FE COUNTY

0 0.5 1 2 mi

0 0.5 1 2 km

SANTA FE COUNTY

SANDOVAL CO.

SANDOVAL COUNTY

LOS ALAMOS COUNTY

SANDOVAL COUNTY

WHITE

SANTA FE 

NATIONAL

FOREST

S

A

N

T A

F E

N A T I O N A L

F O R E S T

BANDELIER

NAT. MON.

SAN ILDEFONSO

PUEBLO LANDS

Rio Grande

★

Taos

Los Alamos

Grants

Albuquerque

Socorro

Las Cruces

Santa Fe

NEW MEXICO

To

Espanola

To

Santa Fe

LOS ALAMOS

COUNTY

LOS ALAMOS COUNTY

RIO ARRIBA COUNTY

TAOS

COUNTY

SANDOVAL

COUNTY SANTA

FE

COUNTY

BERNALILLO

COUNTY

Tierra Amarilla

Taos

Los Alamos

Santa Fe

Bernalillo

Albuquerque

LOS ALAMOS

COUNTY

Pajarito Road

East Jemez Road

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Technical Area boundaries

County boundaries

Other political boundaries

Major paved roads

ROCK

NM

CO UT

AZ

TX

OK

cARTography by A. Kron 4/5/00

BANDELIER

NATIONAL MONUMENT

N

4 4

30

4

502

502 502

501

4

U. S. A.

LOS ALAMOS

Figure 1. Location of Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 3 July 26, 2001 

1.2 Background 

NNSA maintains core intellectual and technical competencies in nuclear weapons technology, as 

well as a safe and reliable national nuclear weapons stockpile. NNSA fulfills its national 

security nuclear weapons responsibilities through the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which 

involves activities performed at LANL. LANL is one of several national laboratories that 

support DOE responsibilities for national security, energy resources, environmental quality, and 

science. The NNSA’s national security mission includes: the safety, reliability, and performance 

of the nuclear weapons in the stockpile; promoting international nuclear safety and 

nonproliferation; reducing the global danger from weapons of mass destruction; the provision of 

nuclear propulsion plants for the U.S. Navy; enhancing national security through the military 

application of nuclear energy; and supporting U.S. leadership in science and technology. The 

energy resources mission of DOE includes research and development for energy efficiency, 

renewable energy, fossil energy, and nuclear energy. The DOE’s environmental quality mission 

includes treatment, storage, and disposal of DOE’s wastes; cleanup of nuclear weapons sites; 

pollution prevention; storage and disposal of civilian radioactive waste; and development of 

technologies to reduce risks and reduce cleanup costs for DOE activities. DOE’s science 

mission includes fundamental research in physics, materials science, chemistry, nuclear 

medicine, basic energy sciences, computational sciences, environmental sciences, and biological 

sciences and often contributes to the other three DOE missions. LANL provides support for 

most of these departmental missions, with a special focus on national security. 

To carry out its Congressionally assigned mission requirements, NNSA must maintain a safe and 

reliable infrastructure at each of the national laboratories. The 1999 Final Site-Wide 

Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operations of the Los Alamos National 

Laboratory (SWEIS; DOE 1999a) discusses each of the previously identified DOE missions in 

greater detail and analyses for different levels of operations at LANL that support these missions. 

The SWEIS also included an identification of emerging actions at LANL (Section 1.6.3.1 of the 

SWEIS) and included a discussion of DOE’s consideration of a variety of options for the 

renovation of infrastructure at LANL’s TA-3 (Figure 2) that could include the replacement of a 

number of aging structures either individually or as part of a multi-building effort. It was 

anticipated in 1999 that one or more building replacements would be needed; the construction 

would be of office and light laboratory buildings to continue housing the existing types of 

activities currently pursued at TA-3. Planning for renovations or replacements was still 

underway and the impacts of these actions were not considered in the SWEIS. Similarly, other 

LANL actions were identified that were not yet sufficiently developed in 1999 to allow DOE to 

incorporate an analysis of impacts in the SWEIS. Some of these actions have subsequently 

received analyses of impacts in compliance with NEPA, and construction has begun on two other 

large office and light laboratory buildings at TA-3 (the Strategic Computing Complex [SCC] and 

the Nonproliferation and International Security Center [NISC]). 

Many of the buildings and structures at TA-3 were built in the mid-1900s after World War II 

ended and the facility was designated a scientific laboratory, later to become one of the country’s 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 4 July 26, 2001 

Figure 2. TA-3 location map. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 5 July 26, 2001 

national security laboratories. Building 3-43 is nearly 50 years old, having been constructed in 

the mid-1950s to house administration, office, and laboratory functions. Today, this 313,500-

square-foot (ft2) (28,215-square-meter [m2]) building houses about 1,000 workers, including 

seven organizations that perform LANL management functions, program management offices 

for the Nuclear Weapons Directorate, and technical operations that include containment 

programs, geo-analysis, nonproliferation and international security, technology and safety 

assessments, and theoretical and applied physics. In addition, Building 3-43 contains LANL 

support functions for information and records management, printing services, lock shop, internal 

security, and classification. It also houses general meeting rooms, including one of the larger 

LANL auditoriums. Each of these programmatic, management, and support functions is 

essential to the LANL overall operations and nuclear weapons work performed for NNSA. 

There are structural and systemic problems at Building 3-43 that make it difficult to meet the 

functional and safety requirements of the operations housed therein. Among the identified 

problems is the reliability of the major building systems, namely, the electrical, mechanical, 

plumbing, and building envelope (Figures 3a, b, c). The building’s systems were not designed to 

meet demands that were unforeseen in the 1950s (such as today’s needs for increased electric 

power and high-speed computer and communication systems), and system components are also 

failing because of normal stresses, strains, and general fatigue resulting from operating long 

beyond their individual design lives. With these component failures, it is becoming increasingly 

difficult to provide replacement parts for equipment that is no longer being manufactured for 

today’s markets. The windows of the building, which make up much of its exterior envelope, 

have also started to fail and suffer from air and moisture infiltration. The roof of the building is 

at its failure stage. Large amounts of asbestos were incorporated into the building when it was 

built and needs to be removed. The basic plumbing systems are crumbling from within and can 

no longer be reliably maintained. The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system 

does not meet current commercial standards for office facilities. Much of the building does not 

have air conditioning, while other portions of the building are cooled by multiple systems, 

including over 100 through-wall systems (i.e., window air conditioners) that have been installed 

over the years. These through-wall systems are very noisy, inefficient, and expensive to operate. 

Additionally, the 300-ton water chiller that cools portions of the building has already failed and 

been upgraded in the past. The electrical distribution system does not function reliably, does not 

meet current code standards, and does not include surge protection capabilities needed to protect 

modern office equipment, especially personal computers. The lighting systems fail to meet 

current standards for appropriate ergonomic illumination or energy use. 

The Building 3-43 structure does not meet current DOE or Uniform Building Code seismic 

standards and its construction design is no longer allowed. A DOE-sponsored structural 

evaluation (LANL 2000a), with peer review, indicates that the seismic capacity is about 25 

percent of that required by current standards. In the event of a design basis earthquake, it is 

anticipated that Building 3-43 would be extensively damaged and might collapse. Furthermore, 

the building design is not consistent with National Fire Protection Life Safety Standards. For 

example, the corridors are used for return air plenums, and the building lacks sufficient 

separation walls. The building also does not meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards. 

Building 3-43 was built well before our increased dependence on office electronics occurred. 

The building is not configured to easily handle today’s demands for increased power and high- 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Struct

NNSA/LAAO 6 

Figure 3a. Existing Administration Building 3-43 (looking mostly east).
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 7 July 26, 2001 

 

Figure 3b. Cramped and makeshift offices. 

Figure 3c. Exterior fire alarm panel and air conditioning units. 

speed communications systems. It also does not facilitate the shifts in the levels of staff and staff 

operations housed therein that have occurred over the past 40-plus years. The configuration of 

the building sections does not foster the variety of work that is being performed in the building 

today and their specific needs. 

Because of these features, the existing facility is a poor work environment for NNSA’s cyberbased weapons program. One of the significant changes that has occurred since Building 3-43 

was constructed is the expectation of physical security. This change has a major impact on the 

physical makeup of the building. As computers have greatly increased the amount of classified 

information present in an office, the need for greater compartmentalization, the levels of physical 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 8 July 26, 2001 

control, and the alarms have changed. These changes and shifts have impacts on ventilation, fire 

suppression, electrical, ceiling, floor, and wall infrastructures. 

The effectiveness of current staff and the ability to recruit and retain qualified employees are 

being adversely affected. Building 3-43 is the primary reception area for visiting dignitaries and 

LANL stakeholders, including the President, members of Congress, the Department of Defense, 

and industrial and academic leaders. It is important that this building present an environment to 

these visitors that is consistent with the high level of science conducted at LANL. 

Overall, it is estimated that Building 3-43 requires an additional $500,000 per year in energy 

costs over that required for a more modern energy-efficient building of similar size. Similarly, 

operational and routine maintenance costs for Building 3-43 are estimated to be several million 

dollars per year over those required by newer buildings of a similar size. 

1.3 Statement of Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

The NNSA has assigned a continuing role for LANL in carrying out its national security mission. 

To continue this enduring responsibility requires that NNSA maintain the capability and capacity 

required to support its national mission assignments at LANL. One of the buildings that houses 

programmatic, management, and support functions that are essential to the overall LANL 

operations and nuclear weapons work performed for DOE and the NNSA is the Administration 

Building 3-43. This building has many identified structural, systemic, and security problems 

associated with it. NNSA needs to correct these problems so that the necessary programmatic, 

management, and support functions housed within can continue to function at LANL with a high 

level of efficiency. Additionally, NNSA also needs to minimize, wherever possible, the use of 

energy and fiscal outlay for maintaining operations. 

1.4 Scope of this EA 

A sliding-scale approach (DOE 1993) is the basis for the analysis of potential environmental and 

socioeconomic effects in this EA. That is, certain aspects of the Proposed Action have a greater 

potential for creating environmental effects than others; therefore, they are discussed in greater 

detail in this EA than those aspects of the action that have little potential for effect. For example, 

implementation of the Proposed Action would affect waste disposal resources in the LANL area. 

This EA, therefore, presents in-depth descriptive information on these resources to the fullest 

extent necessary for effects analysis. On the other hand, implementation of the Proposed Action 

would cause only a minor effect on socioeconomics at LANL. Thus, a minimal description of 

socioeconomic effects is presented. 

When details about a Proposed Action are incomplete, as a few are for the Proposed Action 

evaluated in this EA (for example, the exact amount of waste generation), a bounding analysis is 

often used to assess potential effects. When this approach is used, reasonable maximum 

assumptions are made regarding potential emissions, effluents, waste streams, and project 

activities (Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of the EA). Such an analysis usually provides an overestimation 

of potential effects. In addition, any proposed future action(s) that exceeds the assumptions (the 

bounds of this effects analysis) would not be allowed until an additional NEPA review could be 

performed. A decision to proceed or not with the action(s) would then be made. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 9 July 26, 2001 

1.5 Public Involvement 

NNSA provided written notification of this NEPA review to the State of New Mexico, the four 

Accord Pueblos (San Ildefonso, Santa Clara, Jemez, and Cochiti), the Mescalero Apache Tribe, 

and to more than 30 other stakeholders in the area on February 5, 2001. In addition, upon release 

of this draft EA, NNSA will allow for a 21-day comment period during which comments on the 

draft document will be accepted from the State, pueblos and tribes, and other LANL 

stakeholders. Where appropriate and to the extent practicable, concerns and comments will be 

considered in the final EA. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 10 July 26, 2001 

(This page intentionally left blank.)
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 11 July 26, 2001 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives 

This section discusses the Proposed Action and a No Action Alternative. Section 2.1 describes 

the Proposed Action for the EA that would allow DOE to meet its purpose and need for agency 

action (Figure 4). The No Action Alternative is presented in Section 2.2 as a baseline for 

comparison with the consequences of implementing the Proposed Action. Alternatives that were 

considered but dismissed from further analysis in this EA are discussed in Section 2.3, and 

related actions are discussed in Section 2.4. 

2.1 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action is to construct and operate the following within LANL’s TA-3: a 

multistoried office building to house about 700 personnel and their functions, which would move 

from Building 3-43; a one-storied lecture hall; and a separate multilevel parking structure (Figure 

5). The Proposed Action would include the transfer of personnel and operations from Building 

3-490 (Badge Office) to available space within Building 3-261 (Otowi Building) and the 

subsequent demolition of Building 3-490. When operations and personnel were completely 

removed from Building 3-43 to the new office building, the NNSA would demolish Building 3-

43 as well. 

Information that is common to all the activities included in the Proposed Action is presented in 

the following paragraphs. The subsections that follow include discussion of the site work and 

construction of each of the buildings and structures, their operations, and the demolition actions 

included as part of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would include some 

modifications and upgrades to existing roadways in the area, which are also described in the 

following paragraphs (Table 1). 

Table 1. Proposed Action Construction and Operations Chronology 

Start Date Activity Predecessor 

October 2002 Design, site preparation, and 

construction of office building. 

Vacant site from demolition of Sherwood Building 

(03-105) and other miscellaneous structures. 

Fencing around site. 

2003 Design, site preparation, and 

construction of parking structure. 

Fencing off and removal of parking and driveways 

in lot east of Otowi Building (03-261). 

2003 Design, site preparation, and 

construction of lecture hall. 

Transfer of 16 employees from Badge Office (03-

490) and demolition of Badge Office. 

Late 2005 Occupancy and operation of new 

office building. 

Completion of construction of Proposed Action. 

2006 Demolition of Building 3-43 and 

restoration of site with native 

vegetation. 

Transfer of employees from Building 03-43 and 

TA-21 Records Storage facility to the new office 

building. 

Construction and Demolition 

The Proposed Action would be located in TA-3, which is a highly developed area occupied by 

about 5,500 workers representing nearly one-half of the total population of UC and subcontractor 

personnel at LANL. The project construction sites are located at areas that have previously been 

cleared of buildings or structures or within existing paved parking areas. No undeveloped 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Struct

NNSA/LAAO 12 

Figure 4. Conceptual rendering to show new structure and demolished areas relative to other b

within TA-3 (looking south).
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Struct

NNSA/LAAO 

13

Figure 5. Proposed office building, parking structure, and lecture hall. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 14 July 26, 2001 

(so called “green-field”) areas would be involved. No construction would be conducted within a 

floodplain or a wetland. 

Each of the buildings and structures would be designed according to general design criteria 

(LANL Facility Engineering Manual) for a new facility (LANL 1999a and DOE Order 413.3). 

Consistent with DOE Order 413.3, the substainable design would include features that would 

allow the structures to operate with improved electric and water use efficiency and would 

incorporate recycled and reclaimed materials into their construction. For example: the new 

office building and lecture hall would incorporate building and finish materials and carpets and 

furnishings made of reclaimed and recycled materials, low-flow lavatory fixtures to minimize 

potable water use, and energy-efficient lighting fixtures and equipment to reduce electric 

consumption. The parking structure would include areas for recharging battery-operated 

vehicles; the finished landscaping of the involved construction area would utilize captured 

precipitation, reused and recycled materials, and native plant species. 

Other operational administrative activities would be employed at the buildings and structures that 

would enhance the overall LANL waste minimization effort and efforts to reduce the use of 

potable water and energy sources (such as recycling office waste). Every effort would be made 

to encourage recycling and re-use of the demolition materials. LANL has existing recycling 

contracts for the following materials: metal, paper, cardboard, concrete, asphalt, wire, smoke 

detectors, exit signs, and light bulbs. To the maximum extent possible, the demolition contractor 

would be required to segregate these materials for recycling. 

Utility services are sufficient and available on-site to serve the new buildings and structures. 

Utility lines are located adjacent to the proposed building sites and would require minimal 

trenching to connect them to the new structures. Minor repairs to existing underground sewer or 

water lines may be necessary. The Building 3-43 cooling tower would be removed and the new 

office building cooling tower would discharge into the LANL sanitary sewer system, or the new 

office building may receive chilled water by sharing capacity with the LANL Data 

Communications Center (LDCC). This connection to the LDCC would require less than 500 feet 

(ft) (150 meter [m]) of shallow trenching in previously disturbed areas. 

Clearing or excavation activities during site construction have the potential to generate dust and 

to encounter previously buried materials. If buried material or remains of cultural significance 

were encountered during construction, activities would cease until their significance was 

determined and appropriate subsequent actions taken. Standard dust suppression methods (such 

as water spraying) would be used on-site to minimize the generation of dust during all phases of 

construction activities. 

Construction of each of the buildings and structures would be performed using common 

construction industry methods, as the operational use of these structures does not have potential 

hazards that would entail unique structural requirements. All construction work would be 

planned and managed to ensure that standard worker safety goals are met. All work would be 

performed in accordance with good management practices, with regulations promulgated by the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and in accordance with various DOE orders 

involving worker and site safety practices. The construction contractor would be prohibited from 

using chemicals that generate Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-regulated 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 15 July 26, 2001 

wastes. Engineering best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented for each 

building and structure site as part of a site Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPP) Plan 

executed under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System construction permit. These 

BMPs may include the use of hay bales, plywood, or synthetic sedimentation fences with 

appropriate supports installed to contain excavated soil and surface water discharge during 

construction of each of the buildings and structures. After each building and structure is 

constructed, mounds of loose soil would be removed from the area. 

Parking within TA-3 would be shifted during the construction phase and traffic would be 

affected for short periods during delivery of construction materials and by the addition of 

construction workers in the area. Approximately 200 construction workers would be on-site 

during the peak construction period, adding approximately 90 vehicles to local roadways during 

construction. These workers would park their personal vehicles at a parking area located at the 

edge of TA-58 (near the southwestern corner of TA-3) about 1,500 ft (450 m) from Building 3-

43 or at other parking areas near TA-3. Parking spaces to the north of Building 3-43 would be 

taken up by construction of the multistoried parking structure. Other parking within TA-3 would 

be freed up for use by removing government vehicles utilized by Johnson Controls Northern 

New Mexico (JCNNM) employees that use a parking lot on the west side of TA-3 next to 

Building 3-38 to parking areas (paved and gravel based) a distance away along Eniwetok Road 

in TA-60 next to Building 60-17. Security fencing at the Building 3-38 parking area would be 

removed and the general public and LANL workers could then use approximately 227 parking 

spaces. The TA-60 parking area would require the erection of industrial security fencing along 

its perimeter. Completion of the SCC and NISC will provide additional parking in this area. 

Proposed parking changes are summarized in Table 2 and discussed further in Section 2.1.2. 

Table 2. Parking Changes Chronology 

Date Activity 

Number of 

Parking Spaces 

Parking Spaces 

Cumulative 

May 01 Today (no activity) — 4,061 

Jun 01 Sherwood building demolition -40 4,021 

Oct 02 JCNNM employee parking +227 4,248 

Jan 03 NISC parking lot +208 4,456 

Mar 03 New office building and parking structure start -300 4,156 

May 03 NISC occupation -162* 3,994 

Oct 03 New parking structure and office building complete +700 up to 4,694 

*Parking spaces are available within one-quarter mile (five-minute walk) radius, and LANL shuttle service would continue. 

Vehicles (such as dump trucks) and heavy machinery (such as bulldozers, a drill rig, dump 

trucks, cranes, and cement mixer trucks) would be used on-site during the construction phase. 

These vehicles would operate primarily during the daylight hours and would be left on-site over 

night. No permanent additional exterior artificial lighting would be required. If needed, 

temporary task lighting would be used. Wastes generated by site preparation and construction 

activities are expected to be nonhazardous. Soil and reclaimed crushed concrete rubble and 

reclaimed asphalt material would be staged at the building debris storage yards located at TA-60 

along Sigma Mesa until reuse on-site or at other LANL or off-site locations. Non-reclaimable or 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 16 July 26, 2001 

recyclable wastes would be disposed of in the Los Alamos County Landfill or its replacement 

facility. Reclaimed copper wiring and glass would be sent off-site to recycle facilities. 

Construction of the office building, parking structure, and lecture hall is estimated to start in 

2003 and take approximately three years to complete (2006). The demolition of Building 3-490 

would take place in the early stage of the construction phase and would require about 2 months 

to complete. The demolition of Building 3-43 is projected to begin in 2006 and would be 

completed in 6 to 12 months. All of the demolition work would be accomplished using handheld or small-scale equipment (as in the case of the removal of windows, copper wiring, and 

asbestos material in Building 3-43) or using heavy machinery (such as wrecking balls and 

bulldozers) to remove the concrete foundations and walls of the buildings. Construction 

materials would be procured primarily from local New Mexico suppliers. Construction workers 

would be drawn from local communities and communities across northern New Mexico. 

Operations 

After construction and demolition, the areas surrounding each of the buildings and structures 

would be cleared of excess soil and be landscaped. The landscaping would incorporate to the 

maximum extent practicable a design to capture and utilize area precipitation to minimize the 

need for permanent water augmentation. Low-pressure sprinklers may be required to supply 

water for the establishment of plants and grassy areas over the first year or two of growth. 

Native plants of the Pajarito Plateau would be used primarily where practicable. Other native 

New Mexico plants could be used minimally that may require drip system water augmentation. 

If practicable, “gray-water” from the TA-3 area would be piped to the site for landscape use. 

The two buildings and parking structure would be designed with a lifetime expectancy of 30 

years (minimum) of operation. At the end of each facility’s useful life, final decontamination 

and demolition would be performed as needed. A separate NEPA compliance review(s) would 

be performed at that time. During the operational life of the buildings and various structures, the 

performance of routine maintenance actions would be expected. Traffic circulation in the 

immediate project area would not be affected by operation of these new facilities. With the 

addition of approximately 36 Records Storage staff from TA-21 into the TA-3 area (assuming a 

0.45 vehicles per employee ratio) only about 16 additional permanent parking spaces would be 

required in this area. These additional parking spaces would be provided by the addition of the 

parking structure. 

2.1.1 New Office Building and Site 

DOE proposes to construct and operate an administration office building with about 275,000 ft2

(24,750 m2) of available floor space. The office building would have a flexible modular floor 

plan to allow the facility to respond to future organizational changes that could occur. It would 

maximize the use of natural lighting and ergonomic designs. The basic functional spaces 

incorporated into the construction of the office building would be as follows: 

• Office spaces for the Laboratory Director, Associate Laboratory Directors, Deputy 

Laboratory Directors, Program and Division Directors and Managers, Chiefs of Staff, Group 

Leaders, Deputy Group Leaders, staff members, executive support staff, and administrative 

staff; and 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 17 July 26, 2001 

• Records management space (for classified material) would include records storage vaults, an 

adjacent reading room, information processing vault with six stations, and a production 

scanning vault with 15 work stations; and 

• Various other spaces for photocopying rooms, file servers, mail alcoves, building reception 

area, locker rooms, visiting staff rooms, equipment receiving areas, reception storage space, 

main and satellite telecommunication rooms, mechanical rooms, electrical rooms, large and 

small conference rooms, break rooms, janitorial storage rooms, restrooms, maintenance shop, 

fire protection areas, elevator lobbies and equipment rooms, stairwell areas, main lobby and 

vestibule, security control points, vaults, video conference rooms, storage, research library, 

and hallway spaces. 

The office building would be located in the core area of TA-3, which would optimize the 

relationship of the existing business functions with the central area for theoretical and 

computational research (Figure 5). Proximity to fiber optic and telephone lines from the LDCC, 

Central Computing Facility, and SCC is required for this building. The proposed building site is 

located at least 50 ft (15 m) away from an adjacent potential fault line. The new office building 

would house both classified and non-classified operations as does Building 3-43 that would be 

located within a limited access security area. Special nuclear materials would not be located in 

the building. The building would balance the requirements for LANL’s public interactions with 

the facility security requirements. The proposed site is also located next to an existing security 

fenced area around the new SCC. This security fenced area would be extended to include the 

new office building. 

Site Preparation 

The office building would be constructed at the location of the former Building 3-105 (also 

known as the Sherwood Building), which, together with adjacent Building 3-287 (also known as 

the Syllac Building) (Figure 6) is being decontaminated and demolished (discussion presented in 

Section 2.4). Demolition of these buildings is expected to be completed by the end of 2003. 

Building 3-105 included a basement about 30 ft (9 m) deep. This excavated area would be filled 

with soil and fenced off for safety purposes. The construction of the office building would take 

advantage of this formerly excavated site to reduce some of the excavation required for 

construction. There may be a need for further clean up of the site, including the removal of 

concrete curbing and some asphalt before construction. Heavy equipment would be used to 

excavate the basement and belowgrade area of the building site. Noise generated by the use of 

heavy machinery would be audible primarily to the involved workforce and to workers housed in 

the surrounding TA-3 area. Involved site workers would be required to wear appropriate 

personal protection equipment, including hearing protection equipment. 

No known potential release sites (PRSs) of hazardous materials are present within the identified 

structure footprints (Figure 5) at the construction site. Should any suspect disposal site be 

disclosed during subsurface construction work, LANL’s Environmental Restoration (ER) Project 

staff would review the site and would stipulate procedures for working within that site area. 

Waste soil and rock material removed during this phase would be staged at the TA-60 staging 

areas to be reclaimed and recycled. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Struct

NNSA/LAAO 18 

Figure 6. Ongoing construction and demolition activities.
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 19 July 26, 2001 

Construction 

The new office building’s structure would most likely consist of a concrete substructure with a 

steel superstructure designed to meet current building loading, wind, and seismic standards. It 

would be constructed of fireproof and fire-retardant materials. High-quality materials 

appropriate for a corporate office facility would be used for portions of the exterior and interior 

of the facility. The building would be about six stories high with one to two stories underground. 

The topography of the site is such that the west side of the structure would extend no more than 

five stories above ground and the east side would rise to about six stories above ground. The total 

height of the building above ground level would range from about 90 to 105 ft (27 to 32 m). 

Standard industry practices would be employed during the construction of the new office 

building. Work at the site would require the use of heavy equipment such as cranes, forklifts, 

cement trucks, and other similar construction equipment. It would also require the use of a 

variety of hand tools and equipment. Noise at the site would be audible primarily to the involved 

workers. During the construction phase, space would be required for equipment storage and 

material staging. The area south of the office building (the site of former Building 3-287) and 

the parking lot east of the Otowi Building, which would be the location for the new parking 

structure, would be available for use during the construction of these new buildings and 

structures for storage and staging purposes. 

Approximately 12,000 cubic yards (yd3

) (9,120 cubic meters [m3]) of solid waste would be 

generated during construction of the office building. This waste (consisting of such items as 

packaging and strapping material, excess gypsum board pieces, broken or bent nails and screws, 

and empty material containers) would be disposed of at the Los Alamos County Landfill or other 

replacement landfill. It is estimated that one truck per day and five days per week would be 

sufficient to remove this material from the site for a duration of about 24 months. 

Operation 

The office building would house personnel from Building 3-43 and the TA-21 Records Storage 

Center for a total population of about 700 full-time LANL workers. The building would provide 

office and computer user space to house some of LANL’s technical research programs – 

primarily from Applied Physics, Theoretical, and Decision Analysis Divisions, program 

management; senior management including the Director, and Associated and Deputy Director 

staff; and key LANL support functions currently housed in Building 3-43. Of the approximate 

1,000 employees currently working in Building 3-43, some would be moving into the new SCC 

and NISC (Figure 6), and about 700 would move into the new office building. This population 

figure includes about 36 staff from the TA-21 Records Storage facility that would be housed in 

the new building together with their operations. There would also be space made available to 

visitors on a short-term-use basis (usually hours or days in length). Conference rooms and 

meeting spaces would also be used in the building, as would areas for computing operations, and 

service operations. This building would have one of the highest levels of occupancy of any 

building at LANL. 

Average water and power use and waste generation amounts would be typical of other modern 

office buildings. UC does not meter either water or electric use nor does it track waste generated 

at Building 3-43. Annual LANL usage of electricity is 628 gigawatt-hours, 693 million gallons 

(3,645 million liters) of water, 187 million gallons (708 million liters) of sewage, and 2,860 tons 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 20 July 26, 2001 

(2,600 metric tons) of solid waste (DOE 1999a). Operation of the new office building is 

expected to use less water and electricity than Building 3-43 because of the fewer personnel it 

would house, the construction design, the use of energy-efficient lighting and equipment, and the 

use of water-conservation measures incorporated in the building and landscape features. 

2.1.2 Parking Structure 

A new parking structure would be constructed within a paved parking area located to the east of 

Building 3-261 (Figure 5). This site is accessed off of West Jemez Road (State Road 501) at the 

intersection with Casa Grande Drive. This is a signalized intersection with turning lanes in all 

directions. The newly developed Los Alamos Research Park is located on the north side of this 

intersection. 

Site Preparation 

A potential fault line across the existing parking lot and proposed location for the new parking 

structure would require the parking structure to accommodate the expected seismic loads. The 

site would be excavated to remove asphalt before construction. Approximately 1,100 yd3

 (836 

m3

) of asphalt would be taken from the site to the TA-60 storage area where it would be recycled 

for use elsewhere at LANL. 

Construction 

The parking structure would be sized and designed to optimize available parking at the site. 

Depending on the number of existing parking spaces eliminated by its construction, up to the 

maximum of 300 spaces present at the site, the structure would be sized to replace the number of 

spaces eliminated by the structure and add 400 more. Therefore, the total number of parking 

spaces provided by the new parking structure would range upwards to a maximum of 700 

standard automobile spaces (Table 2). It could accommodate from 400 to 1,000 vehicles 

(including cars, vans, trucks, motorcycles, and bicycles). The structure would either be single 

storied or may be multiple storied; the current estimate is that it would be no more than four 

stories above ground level in height (about 70 ft [21 m] above grade). The building is planned as 

“cast-in-place” concrete construction with steel reinforcement. The exterior would incorporate 

high-quality materials. Vehicles within the parking structure would be largely excluded from 

sight as viewed from the roadway. 

Parking lost during the construction phase would be offset by 250 parking spaces that will 

become available upon completion of the SSC and NISC buildings by late 2003. In addition, as 

already discussed, approximately 300 spaces will become available after the transfer of 

government vehicles from parking spaces currently used next to Building 3-38 on the west side 

of the TA-3 developed area. 

Operation 

The parking structure would be available for use by LANL employees and visitors by 2004. The 

structure would provide for related services such as the charging of batteries for battery operated 

vehicles. Maintenance of the facility would be minimal and would be expected to be conducted 

routinely over the anticipated minimum 30-year operational life span. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 21 July 26, 2001 

2.1.3 New Lecture Hall 

A 600-seat lecture hall would be constructed at the site of the existing Building 3-490 along Casa 

Grande Drive to replace the one located within Building 3-43 (Figure 5). An enclosed corridor 

to provide access from within that building would connect the lecture hall to the office building. 

Demolition and Site Preparation 

Site preparation would include the demolition of Building 3-490 after the workers housed in that 

building had been relocated to Building 3-261 (the Otowi Building). Approximately 500 yd3

(380 m3) of building demolition material and excavated soil and rock would be removed from 

the site and transported to Sigma Mesa for reclamation and reuse or to the Los Alamos County 

Landfill or another approved municipal landfill for permanent disposal. 

Construction 

The lecture hall would be located less than 150 ft (45 m) away from the new office building. 

The lecture hall would be one story high (about 20 ft [6 m] above ground level) and designed in 

the same style and materials as the new office building. Construction of the lecture hall would 

be conducted in a similar manner as that of the office building. It would require the use of heavy 

equipment and machinery. The building would include an entry vestibule, rest rooms, equipment 

rooms, storage rooms, and utility rooms in addition to the 600-seat lecture hall. 

Operation 

This lecture hall is needed to conduct large, classified meetings and colloquiums in support of 

programmatic work. The design and construction of this facility would include a secure corridor 

connecting the new office building that would allow the lecture hall to be used for open as well 

as classified discussions. Maintenance of the facility would be minimal and would be expected 

to be conducted routinely over the anticipated minimum 30-year operational life span. 

2.1.4 Demolition of Building 3-43 

The demolition of Building 3-43 would occur after all personnel and operations are removed 

starting in about 2006. A waste minimization and pollution prevention plan would be prepared 

as part of the Proposed Action project to address waste issues for the demolition of Building 3-

43. As already discussed, building demolition materials would be recycled and reused to the 

extent practicable. All waste requirements for demolition-generated wastes would be met. 

Building 3-43 has a large amount of incorporated asbestos-containing building material that 

would require a rigorous asbestos removal program and disposal of the material at a specifically 

permitted disposal facility located off-site from LANL. Building 3-43 housed a photo lab at one 

time, and some chemical and heavy metal contamination may exist in a small area in the 

basement. This has not been identified as a PRS. Further characterization would be performed 

before demolition activities. Hazardous waste generated during demolition actions would be 

packaged according to U.S. Department of Transportation standards and shipped off-site for 

treatment and disposal. 

After the building was demolished, crushed concrete from the structure would be used to fill the 

hole left by the removal of Building 3-43’s basement. The concrete would likely be crushed at 

the site or moved to the TA-60 concrete crushing site for the crushing action to occur and then 

trucked back to the site. Clean fill dirt would be placed on top, and the entire area would be 

planted over. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 22 July 26, 2001 

2.2 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative provides a description of current conditions to compare to the 

potential effects of the Proposed Action. This alternative must be considered even if DOE is 

under a court order or legislative command to act [10 CFR 1021.32 (c)]. Under the No Action 

Alternative DOE would not construct an office building, parking structure, or lecture hall—nor 

would DOE demolish Building 3-43 nor Building 3-490. The need for increased electric power 

and communications systems and security systems in Building 3-43 would not be met. Poorquality office space and the effectiveness of current staff and the ability to recruit and retain 

qualified employees would remain a problem. Current DOE or Uniform Building Code seismic 

standards would not be met and use of the building would be phased out over time as 

commercial lease space or space within LANL became available or trailers could be brought on 

site. No TA-3 disturbance of existing parking or building sites would occur. There would be no 

construction or building removal debris to require disposal. Utility usage would remain 

essentially the same as present usage for a time and then be transferred to whatever new office 

space was made available. No consolidation of record storage would be allowed and no new 

parking spaces would be created. Continued expenses for repairs and replacement of aging 

HVAC systems and other building components would increase. As building systems and other 

components fail and cannot be replaced or repaired, areas of the building would be closed. As a 

result, attrition of staff from the building would continue and eventually human occupancy of the 

facility would cease. 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed 

2.3.1 Use of Other Existing Space 

UC staff at the LANL Space Management Office have determined that no single office space 

within LANL or commercial space within the Los Alamos townsite is available at this time that 

could house a staff of 700 with the necessary security and computing requirements. Also, space 

outside of the TA-3 area would negatively affect productivity and effectiveness attributed to the 

potential fragmentation of operations and longer travel times for associated personnel. It would 

take considerable time (several years) before a space large enough to house that many staff could 

become available in the commercial sector. No other office space of that size is anticipated to 

become available at LANL within the next five years either. Office spaces for small numbers of 

personnel are available both within LANL and within Los Alamos townsite; however this 

piecemeal approach to housing the 700 Building 3-43 personnel would require that they be 

scattered throughout Los Alamos County and LANL. This approach to making use of existing 

space would also negatively affect productivity and effectiveness attributed to the potential 

fragmentation of operations and longer travel times for associated personnel and the cost may be 

greater. The ability to provide adequately for security requirements could likely not be met 

through this method of space procurement. This alternative was considered to be unreasonable 

and was not analyzed in this EA. 

2.3.2 Building 3-43 Renovation 

Correcting all identified problems, inefficiencies, and inadequacies of the 3-43 Administration 

Building would not meet DOE’s purpose and need. Modifications to existing facilities, 

especially one as inadequate as Building 3-43, are expensive, inefficient, and would fall short of 

meeting security requirements. Designing these characteristics into a new facility with an 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 23 July 26, 2001 

element of flexibility for future requirements would greatly enhance NNSA’s ability to maintain 

control over any sensitive information that would be maintained in the facility. Additionally, 

correcting all the identified building seismic deficiencies would be technically challenging in that 

a 75-percent correction would be required to meet today’s seismic requirements. The building’s 

exterior is mostly composed of glass windows, with a concrete frame and block infill design. 

Making changes of the magnitude required would be extremely costly if they could be devised at 

all. The ability of engineers to reconfigure the building to meet current needs within its existing 

footprint would also be difficult and costly. New HVAC, plumbing, electrical, and other 

building systems would have to be installed to replace the existing systems that are failing. 

Doing renovation of this nature and magnitude while the building is occupied would result in 

work slowdowns or require temporary relocation of some workers.

The overall effort required to retrofit the existing building to meet all current building design and 

safety codes, needs and requirements of operations, and security needs would be prohibitively 

difficult and fiscally imprudent. Additionally, the time needed to plan, design, and rebuild the 

structure would delay needed safety corrections unacceptably, thereby necessitating costly 

interim facility repairs or changes, which would add to the overall expense and difficulty of the 

exercise. The costs and time expenditures would be much greater than the cost and time required 

to plan and build a new structure(s) to house the programmatic, management, and support 

functions needed by UC. 

Building 3-43 was not designed or constructed in a fashion that is conducive to large-scale 

system upgrades. To shut down even the smallest sections would require shutting down utilities 

that serve much larger portions of the building. In addition, the serious deficiencies in the 

seismic design and other building systems would be extremely costly and difficult to correct. 

Even after such an investment, the building would gain less than an additional 20 years of life. 

Finally, even if efforts to rebuild this facility were attempted, there is no sufficient secure area 

within TA-3, at another LANL site, or within the townsite to house the current staff and 

operations during renovations. This alternative was considered to be unreasonable and was not 

analyzed further in this EA. 

2.4 Related Actions 

2.4.1 Final Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued 

Operation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory 

The Final LANL SWEIS (DOE 1999a), dated January 1999, was issued in February of that year. 

A record of decision was issued in September 1999, and a Mitigation Action Plan was issued in 

October 1999. As already noted in this EA, the SWEIS included text regarding the consideration 

of a variety of options for the renovation of infrastructure at TA-3 that would include replacing a 

number of aging structures either individually or as part of a multibuilding effort, but the analysis 

of these action’s impacts was not included in the SWEIS (DOE 1999a). 

2.4.2 TA-3 Revitalization Plan 

UC, as required by DOE in 1997, conceived a draft comprehensive site plan for LANL that 

included the revitalization of the entirety of TA-3, along with other portions of LANL’s technical 

areas. LANL’s draft comprehensive site plan was issued by UC on January 31, 2000, for 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 24 July 26, 2001 

stakeholder and public review (LANL 1999b). As conceived in 2000, the LANL TA-3 

Revitalization Plan would have required a level of funding that is not currently planned by 

NNSA and Congress in order to be realized in its entirety; an attempt to seek third-party 

financing for site plan implementation was not successful. In January 2001, NNSA requested 

that UC, along with other NNSA site facility contractors, revise their facility comprehensive site 

plan according to new guidance for aligning the site planning process with budget formulation 

and execution, starting with Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 budget planning (Creedon 2001). 

Consequently, LANL’s new Ten-Year Comprehensive Site Plan is scheduled for UC submittal to 

NNSA in the September or October 2001 time frame; after NNSA approval is obtained, the plan 

will then be issued to LANL stakeholders. As directed by NNSA, this Ten-Year Comprehensive 

Site Plan will be revised annually to support the budget request for the next budget year. 

Individual projects for the construction of the SCC and NISC consistent with the TA-3 

Revitalization Plan were proposed in the past five years and were subject to separate NEPA 

compliance reviews. These two projects are discussed in the following subsections of this 

document. The proposed replacement of Building 3-43 with a new facility was included in the 

2000 Draft Plan along with other activities as part of the “Revitalization of TA-03,” and it is 

expected to be reflected in the new Ten-Year Comprehensive Site Plan as well. Given the nature 

of the Ten-Year Comprehensive Site Plan as a constantly evolving tool for site planning and 

budgeting purposes, it is unlikely that compliance strategies will be developed for 

implementation as a whole, although this may be revealed as possible after the final plan is 

issued and reviewed. Until the Ten-Year Comprehensive Site Plan has been issued and a 

reasonable compliance strategy developed, review of each proposal will be made to ensure the 

project’s overall consistency with the general LANL site planning process. To that end, the 

Proposed Action under consideration in this EA is consistent with the LANL site planning 

process. 

2.4.2.1 Strategic Computing Complex 

NNSA is constructing and will soon operate the SCC building within TA-3 in proximity to the 

proposed new office building (Figure 6). The SSC will house and operate an integrated system 

of computer processors capable of performing approximately 50 trillion floating point operations 

per second, as part of the Accelerating Strategic Computing Initiative in support of the Stockpile 

Stewardship and Management Program. This facility is planned for completion by late 2001. 

An EA was completed for this project on December 18, 1998, (DOE 1998a) and, based on this 

EA, DOE determined that the Proposed Action would not significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact in December 1998. 

2.4.2.2 Nonproliferation and International Security Center 

NNSA has completed a proposal to construct and operate the NISC building on the northwest 

corner of Pajarito and Mercury Drive in TA-3 also in proximity to the proposed new office 

building (Figure 6). The NISC building would consolidate the verification and intelligence 

functions of approximately 600 Nonproliferation and International Security Division personnel 

who are currently spread out over eight TAs and 45 facilities. This building is planned for 

completion around late 2002. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 25 July 26, 2001 

An independent NEPA analysis for the NISC building was completed (DOE 1999b) in July 

1999. Based on this EA, DOE determined that the Proposed Action would not significantly 

affect the quality of the human environment and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact in 

July 1999. 

2.4.3 Demolition of Vacated Buildings 

The demolition of vacated buildings and removal of trailers and transportables is ongoing at 

LANL and in particular at TA-3 (Figure 6). Demolition has been evaluated for NEPA 

compliance purposes and was categorically excluded from the need to prepare either an EA or an 

Environmental Impact Statement in June 1998. 

2.4.4 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Conveyance and Transfer of 

Certain Land Tracts Administered by the U.S. Department of Energy and 

Located at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos and Santa Fe 

Counties, New Mexico (C&T EIS) 

On November 26, 1997, Congress passed PL 105-119, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 

and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Section 632, 42 U.S. 

Code Sections 2391; the Act). Section 632 of the Act directs the Secretary of Energy to convey 

to the Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New Mexico, or to the designee of the County, and to 

transfer to the Secretary of the Interior, in trust for the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, parcels of land 

under the jurisdictional administrative control of the Secretary at or in the vicinity of LANL. A 

Record of Decision for this action was issued in December 1999. 

DOE prepared the C&T EIS (DOE 1999c) to examine potential environmental impacts 

associated with the conveyance or transfer of each of the land parcels tentatively identified in the 

DOE’s Land Transfer Report to Congress Under Public Law 105-119, A Preliminary 

Identification of Parcels of Land in Los Alamos, New Mexico, for Conveyance or Transfer (DOE 

1998b). One of the parcels identified for transfer was the DP Road Tract that includes the TA-21 

Records Storage and Archives building. The relocation of this function as part of the Proposed 

Action analyzed in this EA would be in support of the Record of Decision for the C&T EIS. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 26 July 26, 2001 

(This page intentionally left blank.)
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 27 July 26, 2001 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Section 3.0 describes the natural and human environment that could be affected by the Proposed 

Action and the No Action Alternative and the environmental consequences of those actions. 

Based on the Proposed Action description, potential environmental resources that may be 

affected as a result of implementing the Proposed Action have been considered. Environmental 

issues were identified and either addressed in this section or not, based on the “Sliding Scale 

Approach” discussed earlier in this EA (Section 1.4). Table 3 identifies the subsection where 

potential environmental issues are discussed or notes why they are not addressed in this 

document. 

Table 3. Environmental Issues Considered 

Environmental 

Category Applicability Subsection 

Transportation, Traffic, 

and Infrastructure Yes 3.2.1 

Waste Management Yes 3.2.2 

Visual Resources Yes 3.2.3 

Cultural Resources Yes 3.2.4 

Geologic Setting Yes 3.2.5 

Air Quality Yes 3.2.6 

Human Health Yes 3.2.7 

Noise Yes 3.2.8 

Socioeconomic Yes 3.2.9 

Water Quality Yes 3.2.10 

Land Use No. Land uses and land use designations in TA-3 as a result of the Proposed Action 

would not change or be affected. 

N/A 

Ecological Resources, 

Wetlands, Floodplains 

No. The proposed project would be located in previously disturbed and developed 

land within an industrialized area of LANL. This building site is adequately distant 

from potential habitat for areas designated as sensitive habitat for Federally listed 

threatened and endangered species so that there are no special protective restrictions 

regarding site activities. There are no floodplains or wetlands affected by this project. 

N/A 

Environmental Justice No. Populations that are subject to Environmental Justice considerations are present 

within 50 miles (mi) (80 kilometers [km]) of Los Alamos County; potential effects of 

this project would be localized within a 10 mi (16 km) radius. Populations nearest to 

the construction site and within this radius are not predominantly minority and lowincome populations. 

N/A 

Potential Release Sites No. No PRSs have been identified in the area designated for the Proposed Action. N/A 

3.1 Regional Setting 

The Proposed Action would be located within the area of Los Alamos County that includes 

LANL. LANL comprises a large portion of Los Alamos County and extends into Santa Fe 

County. LANL is situated on the Pajarito Plateau along the eastern flank of the Jemez 

Mountains and consists of 49 TAs. The Pajarito Plateau slopes downward towards the Rio 

Grande along the eastern edge of LANL and contains several fingerlike mesa tops separated by 

relatively narrow and deep canyons. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 28 July 26, 2001 

Commercial and residential development in Los Alamos County is confined primarily to several 

mesa tops lying north of the core LANL development, in the case of the Los Alamos Townsite, 

or southeast, in the case of the communities of White Rock and Pajarito Acres. The lands 

surrounding Los Alamos County are largely undeveloped wooded areas with large tracts located 

to the north, west, and south of LANL that are administered by the Department of Agriculture, 

Santa Fe National Forest; the Department of Interior, National Park Service, Bandelier National 

Monument; and Bureau of Land Management to the east. 

Detailed descriptions of LANL’s natural resources environment, cultural resources, 

socioeconomics, waste management, regulatory compliance record, and general operations are 

described in great detail in the Site Wide Environmental Impact Statement for Continued 

Operation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (DOE 1999a). Additional information is 

available in the Environmental Surveillance and Compliance at Los Alamos at Los Alamos 

During 1999 – 30th Anniversary Edition (LANL 2000b) report and the Special Environmental 

Analysis for the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Actions taken 

in Response to the Cerro Grande Fire at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New 

Mexico, (DOE 2000). These documents may be found in the LANL library and are available on 

the world-wide-web at http://nepa.eh.doe.gov/eis/eis0238/feis0238toc.html, http://libwww.lanl.gov/la-pubs/la-13775.pdf, and at http://lib-www.lanl.gov/pubs/doesea-03.htm

respectively. 

3.2 Potential Environmental Issues 

3.2.1 Transportation, Traffic, and Infrastructure 

3.2.1.1 Affected Environment 

About one-half the LANL workforce is located at TA-3, and this TA also has the highest 

percentage of land used for vehicle parking. Personal vehicles are the predominant 

transportation mode at LANL and Los Alamos County. There are four main LANL access 

points that accommodate about 43,000 average daily trips. Accident rates in Los Alamos are 

considerably less than other urbanized areas in New Mexico and are trending downward. In 

1996, the County of Los Alamos had a rate of 18 crashes per one-thousand population and the 

rate declined to 14 crashes per one-thousand population in 1998. The County’s population is 

essentially stable. Statewide, the comparable accident rate was 28 per one-thousand population 

in 1998 and 31 per one-thousand in 1996 (http://www.unm.edu/~dgrint/annual.html). While 

construction of the SCC and NISC have decreased the number of parking spaces within the 

central portion of TA-3, there are approximately 4,230 spaces within one-quarter mile (5 minutes 

walk) of the center of TA-3 (Pava 1999). In 1999, LANL implemented a transportation strategy 

within TA-3 that included reserved parking for carpool vehicles, shuttle bus service to more 

distant satellite lots, and pedestrian crossing improvements. 

All necessary utilities are available close to the proposed project locations. There are electric, 

steam, water, and sewer lines located nearby and serving the proposed building envelope and this 

is also the case at the parking structure site. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 29 July 26, 2001 

3.2.1.2 Proposed Action 

Construction activities would create some temporary and localized short-term parking 

inconveniences over a three-year period. This project would not adversely affect traffic, parking, 

and infrastructure services in this area in the long term after the construction phase was 

completed. New parking spaces provided by the proposed parking structure would help alleviate 

the tight parking situation in TA-3. Per capita utility demand would actually be reduced with the 

construction of an energy-efficient office building and the demolition of old and temporary 

structures. 

It is estimated that 200 construction personnel would be on-site at the peak construction period. 

This means approximately 90 vehicles could be added to local roadways during construction of 

the office building and the parking structure, assuming a 0.45 vehicle/employee ratio 

(DOE1999b). Construction personnel would park on-site and at remote designated parking 

areas. 

Construction of the proposed parking structure would delete up to 300 existing spaces east of 

Building 3-261 temporarily. The new office building construction and operation itself will not 

affect parking demand. The loss of these parking spaces would be offset by the 250 spaces 

created after the completion of SCC and NISC (which will occur in 2003 before the start of the 

parking structure) and the 227 spaces created by the removal of all government vehicle parking 

spaces around TA-3-38. The government vehicle parking lot at TA-60 (Sigma Mesa) where 

workers would leave their private vehicles and pick up a government vehicle would not affect 

parking within TA-60 (Table 2). The parking site is at the unused test fabrication facility on 

Sigma Mesa (TA-60-17) that is partially paved and may only require the addition of some gravel 

and a perimeter fence. 

Truck volumes that would carry waste material to either local or regional landfill sites are shown 

in Table 4 (Page 32). Each truck is estimated to haul 10 yd3

 (8 m3). The asphalt removed from 

the parking lot east of Building 3-261 would be taken to the TA-60 storage area where it would 

be recycled for use elsewhere at LANL. About one truck per day would be needed to carry this 

material during site preparation for the parking structure. 

Approximately 36 Records Storage staffers would relocate from TA-21. Assuming a 0.45 

vehicle per employee ratio, 16 additional permanent parking spaces would be needed in TA-3. 

The government vehicle remote site at Sigma Mesa would increase traffic along Eniwetok Drive 

and at the intersection of Eniwetok Drive and Diamond Drive, particularly during the morning 

and evening peak periods. The addition of up to 227 additional vehicle trips in this area would 

not substantially affect this intersection. Eniwetok Drive to the east of the JCNNM warehouse 

and repair shops (TA-60-1 and -2) is a narrow road with minimal shoulders. 

The new office building would contain more energy-efficient utility systems. Some of the 

existing utilities in and around Building 3-105 (Sherwood) and the proposed parking structure 

would require relocation and/or repairs and modifications for tie-ins and to service the new office 

building. The present Building 3-43 cooling tower would be removed and the new office 

building cooling tower would discharge into the LANL sanitary sewer system, or the new office 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 30 July 26, 2001 

building may receive chilled water by sharing capacity with the LDCC. This connection to the 

LDCC would require less than 500 ft (150 m) of shallow trenching in previously disturbed areas. 

3.2.1.3 No Action Alternative 

Approximately 36 Records Storage staffers would not relocate from Los Alamos townsite. 

Therefore, assuming a 0.45 vehicle/employee ratio, 16 additional permanent parking spaces 

would not be needed. The current parking inconveniences would persist long term because the 

400- to 1000-space parking structure would not be built. Consequently, the surface parking lots 

constructed to replace the loss of spaces from the SCC and NISC projects and the shuttle service 

would continue to be used. The existing utility network would remain in place. Energyefficiency improvements would not occur. 

3.2.2 Waste Management 

3.2.2.1 Affected Environment 

Both LANL and Los Alamos County use the same solid waste landfill located on DOE land. 

The Los Alamos County Landfill accepts waste from other neighboring communities. The Los 

Alamos County Landfill receives about 18,850 tons per year (17,100 metric tons per year), with 

LANL contributing about 2,860 tons per year (2,600 metric tons per year). Based on discussions 

with the Los Alamos County Solid Waste Manager (Bachmeier 2001), the current plans are to 

close the Los Alamos County Landfill by June 30, 2004. Several landfill possibilities within 

New Mexico could be used after 2004, such as the landfill located at Rio Rancho, which is 

approximately 85 highway mi (137 km) south of Los Alamos. Access to the Rio Rancho landfill 

is along state highways and Interstate Highway 25. The current Los Alamos County Landfill 

would be capped and would enter the monitoring phase of its life cycle, and a portion of the site 

would be used as a transfer station. The recycling center would continue to operate. 

Hazardous waste regulated under the RCRA is transported to TA-54 at LANL for proper 

management, which is carried out in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and DOE 

Orders. Non-RCRA-regulated hazardous wastes are disposed of off-site at various commercial 

disposal locations. 

Dedicated pipelines to the Sanitary Wastewater Systems Consolidation plant at TA-46 deliver 

sanitary liquid wastes from TA-3 and other TAs at LANL. The plant has a design capacity of 

600,000 gallons (2.27 million liters) per day and in 1995 processed a maximum of about 400,000 

gallons (1.5 million liters) per day (DOE 1999a). 

3.2.2.2 Proposed Action 

This project would require the handling of construction material from the new office building, 

parking structure, and lecture hall and disposal of wastes from construction demolition activities, 

which would affect waste management resources in the area. A complete waste characterization 

has not been completed at this time. However, it is anticipated that an initial waste evaluation of 

Buildings 3-43 and 3-490 would be accomplished during the conceptual design phase for the 

new office building and lecture hall. This evaluation would identify the known waste forms and 

quantities that exist within Buildings 3-43 and 3-490 and will establish removal and disposal 

plans. Early discussions with the Building 3-43 facility management staff and knowledge from 

previous construction projects at LANL indicate the potential for the following waste types and 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 31 July 26, 2001 

general representative volumes. A summary of waste types, quantities, and disposal is included 

at the end of this section in Table 4. 

• Solid waste (office wastes, material packaging, glass, etc.) 

• Construction and demolition solid wastes (concrete, steel, lumber, etc.) 

• Hazardous (asbestos, photo-chemicals, lead, beryllium) 

Radioactive and mixed wastes have not been identified at this time and are not expected to be 

found in the building. This would be known upon completion of the waste characterization 

study. These wastes, if present, would be handled by LANL waste operations staff using 

approved methods. 

The waste management plan for the Proposed Action would be to dispose of the solid waste from 

construction, demolition and operations at the Los Alamos County Landfill, a new regional 

facility, or other New Mexico landfills. The new regional landfill project is still in the very early 

stages of planning and environmental analysis. Other New Mexico licensed solid waste landfills 

would likely be used. The Rio Rancho landfill is about 85 highway mi (137 km) from LANL. 

Use of this landfill would require transporting LANL solid wastes along regional highways, 

which would result in the same affect as other traffic in the region. 

Construction 

Construction debris primarily comprised of wood, metal, and asphalt would be the typical waste 

expected to be generated during construction of the office building, parking structure, and lecture 

hall. This solid waste would be disposed of either at the Los Alamos County Landfill or at 

another appropriate municipal solid waste landfill. Small amounts of hazardous waste would be 

generated that LANL waste management personnel would manage in accordance with the 

requirements of RCRA and other appropriate laws, regulations, and DOE Orders. Additionally, 

the project would generate excess uncontaminated soil from excavation activities. The soil 

would be stockpiled at a location on Sigma Mesa (TA-60) or other approved material 

management area for future use. 

Demolition of Building 3-43 and Building 3-490 

Solid waste from demolition would include mostly concrete, metal, and glass generated as a 

result of the removal of Buildings 3-43 and 3-490. To the extent possible, demolition-generated 

material would be recycled or reused either at LANL or off-site (see following paragraphs for 

discussion of this issue). The debris that could not be recycled or reused from both buildings 

would most likely be disposed of at a municipal solid waste landfill such as the Rio Rancho 

landfill. 

Hazardous wastes would be identified and removed from Building 3-43 before the general 

structural demolition begins. UC would manage this work. The work would be performed by 

commercial subcontractors licensed for this type of activity. UC uses qualified disposal sources 

for various hazardous waste materials. The disposal sites are audited for regulatory compliance 

before being included on the UC qualified contract source list for the disposal site locations 

across the U.S. (Table 4). Potential off-site disposal locations (for hazardous wastes) include 

either Mountainair, New Mexico, or Phoenix, Arizona, for asbestos; Albuquerque, New Mexico, 

for lead; Henderson, Colorado, or Kettleman Hills, California, for beryllium; and Fernley, 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 32 July 26, 2001 

Nevada, for photo-chemicals. Mountainair is located about 130 mi (48 km) from Los Alamos. 

Phoenix is about 550 mi (880 km) and Albuquerque is 90 mi (144 km) from Los Alamos. 

Henderson, which is just north of Denver, is about 380 miles (608 km) from Los Alamos, and 

Kettleman Hills, just north of Los Angeles, is about 965 mi (1,544 km) away. Fernley, Nevada, 

located just outside of Reno, is about 1,080 mi (1,728 km) from Los Alamos. 

The waste quantities shown below have been developed from prior LANL demolition reports 

and preliminary walk-throughs of Building 3-43. The estimates would be refined as additional 

information becomes available during the development of the project design, but these estimates 

are expected to be bounding of the actual waste amounts generated. 

Table 4. Approximate Waste Management Type, Quantity, and Disposal Location 

Type Source Quantity 

yd3 (m3) 

Traffic 

(truck/day, 

5-day week) 

Period 

(Fiscal

Year) 

Duration 

Potential 

Disposal Location 

Solid Waste 03-43 

Construction 

12,000 

(9,120) 

1 2003-5 24 months Rio Rancho, New 

Mexico 

Construction 

and 

Demolition 

03-43 

Demolition 

5,200 

(3,952) 

3 2006 3 months Rio Rancho, New 

Mexico 

Construction 

and 

Demolition 

03-490 

Demolition 

500 

(380) 

<1 2003 1 month Rio Rancho, New 

Mexico 

Aggregate 

Stone 

03-43 

Demolition 

20,000 

(15,200) 

10 2006 3 months Onsite (LANL) 

crushing and re-use as 

backfill 

Aggregate 

Stone 

03-490 

Demolition 

100 

(76) 

<1 2003 1 month Rio Rancho, New 

Mexico 

Asbestos 03-43 

Demolition 

6,200 

(4,712) 

7 2006 1.5 months Mountainair, New 

Mexico, or Phoenix, 

Arizona 

Lead 03-43 

Demolition 

1 (0.76) 1 2006 1 day Albuquerque, New 

Mexico 

Beryllium 03-43 

Demolition 

60 (46) 2 2006 1 day Henderson, Colorado, 

or Kettleman Hills, 

California 

Photochemicals 03-43 

Demolition 

TBD 1 2006 1 day Fernley, Nevada 

Operations 

Solid waste generated during the operation of the office building, lecture hall, and parking 

structure would be disposed of at the Los Alamos County Landfill or other appropriate solid 

waste landfill. The amount of waste generated during operation of these new structures would 

not increase substantially from current volumes generated at Building 3-43. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 33 July 26, 2001 

Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention 

The Proposed Action would make every effort to encourage recycling and reuse of the 

demolition materials wherever possible during each of the three stages of the project. For 

example, the concrete demolition waste could be crushed and reused to backfill the Building 3-

43 basement excavation site. This would divert some of the waste away from land disposal. 

Asphalt materials would be ground up and stockpiled for reuse at LANL. UC utilizes various 

off-site waste-recycling facilities for the following materials: metal, paper, cardboard, concrete, 

asphalt, wire, smoke detectors, exit signs, and light bulbs. To the maximum extent possible, the 

demolition contractor would be required to segregate these materials for recycling. UC is 

contemplating contract incentives for the construction contractor that would encourage recycling 

and waste minimization. Waste that is shipped off-site would conform to applicable 

requirements. Most unclassified shipments are transported via commercial carriers. 

3.2.2.3 No Action Alternative 

There would be no waste generation under the No Action Alternative as there would be no 

construction or demolition wastes generated. The construction and demolition waste and truck 

traffic to other landfills or recycling centers would not occur. 

3.2.3 Visual Resources 

3.2.3.1 Affected Environment 

The visual environment of LANL is described in the 1999 LANL SWEIS. The natural setting of 

the Los Alamos area is panoramic and scenic. The mountain landscape, unusual geology, varied 

plant communities, and archaeological heritage of the area create a diverse visual environment. 

Portions of the viewshed underwent substantial changes as a result of the Cerro Grande Fire. 

The fire denuded large areas of the mountain slopes that form the scenic background in the Los 

Alamos area. The resulting landscape is both more stark and less uniform than before the fire 

(DOE 2000). 

Much of the development within LANL is austere and utilitarian. Overcrowded conditions have 

often resulted in an unplanned, visually discordant assembly of structures. Much of the 

development has occurred out of the public’s view. The most visible developments are a few tall 

structures, facilities at high, exposed locations, and those beside well-traveled, publicly 

accessible roads. Tall structures, such as the Rack Assembly and Alignment Complex at TA-60, 

and the extremely dense mixed development in areas such as TA-3 have been identified as 

adverse visual impacts (DOE 1999a). 

The Proposed Action would be implemented within LANL’s Core Planning Area (TA-3). The 

Core Planning Area contains most of LANL’s population, buildings, and infrastructure. In the 

future, this area is expected to contain LANL’s central administration functions and to be 

LANL’s primary public interface area (LANL 2000b). 

3.2.3.2 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would have some beneficial and some disruptive effects. The existing 

administration building is part of the “dense mixed development” within TA-3 that constitutes an 

adverse visual impact because it contains unusually discordant structures. The removal of 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 34 July 26, 2001 

Building 3-43 would be considered a beneficial effect. The Proposed Action would be consistent 

with LANL’s Comprehensive Site Plan (LANL 2000b). The proposed office building, lecture 

hall, and parking structure would be visually compatible with nearby office and computing 

structures, such as the SCC and NISC buildings and the Los Alamos Research Park, this would 

enhance the overall appearance of the Core Planning Area. 

The proposed office building would stand about 105 ft (32 m) above grade and would be one of 

the taller structures at TA-3. The vent stack for the new NISC would be about 90 ft (27 m) high. 

The proposed office building would be about 20 ft (6 m) higher than the SSC and thus would be 

a prominent landmark building. From various viewpoints, the office building would be clearly 

visible at the base of the Jemez Mountains and would be one of a number of visually disruptive 

elements against the natural lines of the background landscape from distant viewers. The 

parking structure and lecture hall would be lower and would not be expected to be visible from a 

distance. Close by, the building would be consistent with nearby new office and computing 

structures within TA-3. 

3.2.3.3 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, Building 3-43 would continue to contribute to the adverse 

visual effects of the TA-3 area. The current Administration Building is about 75 ft (23 m) tall 

above ground level. No other visual resources effects (either beneficial or adverse) would occur. 

3.2.4 Cultural Resources 

3.2.4.1 Affected Environment 

Cultural resources include any prehistoric sites, buildings, structures, districts, or other places or 

objects considered to be important to a culture or community for scientific, traditional, religious, 

or any other reason. They combine to form the human legacy for a particular place (DOE 

1999a). To date, over 2,000 archaeological sites and historic properties have been recorded at 

LANL. 

The criteria used for evaluating cultural resources depends upon their significance as sites 

eligible for listing to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as described in the

National Historic Preservation Act (16 United States Code 470). These determinations of 

significance are met by evaluating each cultural resource based on it meeting any one or more of 

the following characteristics: 

a) Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our 

history. 

b) Association with the lives of persons significant in our past. 

c) Illustration of a type, period, or method of construction; for its aesthetic values or for its 

representation of the work of a master; or if it represents a significant and distinguished 

entity whose components may lack individual distinction. 

d) It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 

No prehistoric sites are located in the area of the Proposed Action. There are numerous 

structures in TA-3 that have been identified as historic structures. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 35 July 26, 2001 

3.2.4.2 Proposed Action 

The planned construction and use of the office building, parking structure, lecture hall, and TA60 government vehicle parking lot would not affect recorded cultural resources. The demolition 

of Building 3-43 would have an adverse effect on an historic structure. The primary effect 

would be the loss of a NRHP-eligible property through demolition. The Administration Building 

was constructed in 1956 and is an important building in the Laboratory’s history and may be 

considered eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, and C. An NRHP eligibility assessment 

for this structure has been completed and sent to the New Mexico State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO) for concurrence, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has been 

notified of the adverse effect. 

Because the demolition of this building has an adverse effect to the property under Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and 36 CFR Part 800.5, 

“Assessment of Adverse Effects,” a treatment plan to resolve these adverse effects would be 

negotiated between the SHPO and the DOE. The treatment plan would include a combination of 

the following elements: archival large format photos, existing architectural blueprints, 

preparation of a current set of as-built drawings, preparation of a detailed report on the building’s 

history, and interviews with past and present workers. Additions to the treatment plan could 

result from negotiations with the SHPO over the resolution of the adverse effects. 

A Memorandum of Agreement for resolution of adverse effects would be prepared following 

SHPO concurrence on the NRHP eligibility assessment and would implement the treatment plan 

and proceed parallel with this EA. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation would be 

notified of the Memorandum of Agreement and would have an opportunity to comment. 

3.2.4.3 No Action Alternative 

The effect of the No Action Alternative on cultural resources is that an historic structure 

(Building 3-43) would not be demolished. The LANL Administration Building Occupancy 

Reduction Plan (LANL 2001a), intended to remove occupants from Building 3-43, would take 

longer to implement. After the building is vacated the structure would begin to deteriorate 

because the same level of funds would no longer be expended to maintain this building, as it 

would not serve to support NNSA missions. This form of benign neglect would also result in an 

adverse effect on an historic structure as eventually the action would also result in the loss of the 

structure. 

3.2.5 Geological Setting 

3.2.5.1 Affected Environment 

Geologically, LANL is located within the northern Rio Grande rift, a seismically active area. 

Although surface-faulting earthquakes have not occurred historically in the LANL region (within 

60 mi [100 km] of LANL), geological evidence indicates that they have occurred during the 

Quaternary Period (1.6 million years). Three fault zones dominate geologic structures in this 

area: the Pajarito Plateau, Rendija Canyon, and Guaje Mountain faults. Evidence indicates that 

the most recent surface-faulting seismic events occurred approximately 1,300 to 2,300 years ago 

(Pajarito Plateau fault). All three faults are geologically young and are capable of producing 

future earthquakes. LANL has been mapped to identify the locations of faults in the area 

enclosing TA-55 on the east and TA-3 on the west, and the University of California (UC) is in 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 36 July 26, 2001 

the process of mapping other areas of LANL. Studies indicate that a fault exists under Building 

3-43 and a potential fault lies under the parking lot east of Building 3-261 (Figure 5). 

3.2.5.2 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action could be affected by the geologic setting. Prior analysis had indicated the 

potential for the existence of two faults in the TA-3 area (Figure 5). Based on this information, a 

probabilistic analysis of potential surface rupture was performed. This analysis indicates that the 

annual probability of surface rupture is less than one in ten thousand. This probability is less 

than the required performance goal for the facility and in accordance with DOE Standard 1021-

93, “Natural Phenomena Hazards Performance Categorization Guidelines for Structures, 

Systems, and Components” (DOE-STD 1021-93). 

A site-specific investigation was performed as the proposed office building would have high 

occupancy and serve a vital mission. Six boreholes up to 115 ft (35 m) deep were excavated at 

the proposed site for the new office building. This task has confirmed the presence of faulting in 

the area shown in Figure 5 and provided a general location. Following the practices and 

guidance used in the states of California and Utah in areas where faulting is present, the building 

would be located no closer than 50 ft (15.25 m) from the fault location. Construction of the 

office building at the proposed site can easily accommodate this standoff requirement. 

The potential fault across the existing parking lot east of Building 3-261 also runs through the 

proposed location for the parking structure. As with the fault near the proposed location for the 

office building, studies indicate the probability of surface rupture is less than the performance 

goal of the parking structure. Thus the site is acceptable for this type of construction. Unlike the 

office building site, the parking structure will be, for the most part, unoccupied. Therefore, the 

extra conservatism used in siting the office building is not warranted and the parking structure 

will be sited without regard for fault location. 

For seismic design with respect to ground motion, the design criteria provided in LANL’s 

Facilities Engineering Standards Manual (LANL 1999) will be followed for both structures. 

3.2.5.3 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, Building 3-43 would not be demolished. Current DOE or 

Uniform Building Code seismic requirements for this facility would not be met. No construction 

would occur under the No Action Alternative. 

3.2.6 Air Quality 

3.2.6.1 Affected Environment 

Air quality is a measure of the amount and distribution of potentially harmful pollutants in 

ambient air. UC calculates annual actual emissions of regulated air pollutants at LANL and 

reports the results annually to the NMED and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 1998, 

the most recent year for which data are available, LANL was in compliance with all air quality 

regulations. The ambient air quality in and around LANL met all EPA and DOE standards for 

protecting the public and workers (LANL 2000c). 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 37 July 26, 2001 

LANL is considered a major source under the State of New Mexico Operating Permit program 

based on the potential to emit regulated air pollutants. Specifically, LANL is a major source of 

nitrogen oxides, emitted primarily from the TA-3 steam plant boilers. Combustion units are the 

primary point sources of criteria pollutants (nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, 

and carbon monoxide) emitted at LANL. Of all combustion units, the TA-3 steam plant is the 

primary source of criteria pollutants. Research and development activities are the primary source 

of volatile organic compound emissions (LANL 2000c). Mobile sources, such as automobiles 

and construction vehicles, are an additional source of nonradioactive air emissions. 

Various existing operations at TA-3 are sources of radioactive and nonradioactive emissions. 

Building 3-43 is not a source of either radioactive or nonradioactive emissions and is not 

monitored for air emissions. 

3.2.6.2 Proposed Action 

Construction and operation of the new office building and associated structures would be 

expected to produce only temporary and localized nonradioactive air emissions. The effects on 

air quality would also be temporary and localized. 

During construction of the proposed office building, parking structure, lecture hall, and 

associated infrastructure and demolition of Buildings 3-43 and 3-490, there would be a 

temporary increase in localized particulate emissions. Operation of construction vehicles such as 

dump trucks, bulldozers, cranes, and waste disposal actions would also produce temporary and 

localized emissions of other air pollutants. 

Construction and earth-moving activities associated with the Proposed Action would temporarily 

increase localized particulate emissions. Standard dust suppression procedures would be used to 

control fugitive dust. Construction activities, which are not considered stationary sources of 

regulated air pollutants under the air quality requirements, are exempt from permitting under 

Title 20 of the New Mexico Administrative Codes, Sections 2.72 and 2.70. 

Demolition of Buildings 3-43 and 3-490 would also be a source of particulate emissions. 

Asbestos, which is regulated under the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

portion of the Clean Air Act, is present in Building 3-43. Asbestos removal is stringently 

controlled and is not expected to produce asbestos emissions. UC is required to provide advance 

notice of demolition at LANL to NMED regarding visible airborne emissions and to ensure the 

proper packaging and disposal of asbestos and other wastes (LANL 2000c). 

Mobile sources, such as construction and waste transport vehicles, would produce other air 

pollutants (such as sulfur oxide), but the emissions would be expected to be similar to those from 

other recent construction actions, such as those involved in the construction of the SCC and 

NISC buildings and area demolition activities at LANL. 

None of the activities proposed for the new office building would produce new air emissions. 

There would be no increase in steam or power production from the TA-3 power plant that would 

cause increased emissions of regulated air pollutants. Since vehicle use at TA-3 would not 

change substantially as a result of constructing the new building, emissions from the use of the 

parking structure would be the same as existing conditions at TA-3. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 38 July 26, 2001 

3.2.6.3 No Action Alternative 

There would be no change in air quality as a result of this alternative. Temporary and localized 

emissions from current mobile sources, such as automobiles and construction vehicles, would 

continue unchanged from implementing the No Action Alternative. 

3.2.7 Human Health 

3.2.7.1 Affected Environment 

This section considers the health of LANL workers and non-LANL construction workers. Public 

health is not considered because no members of the general public would work in the proposed 

new buildings or be affected by the demolition of existing buildings. In addition, no activities 

performed in the proposed new buildings would pose health risks to members of the public. 

The health of LANL workers is routinely monitored depending upon the type of work 

performed. Health monitoring programs for LANL workers assess a wide range of potential 

concerns including exposures to radioactive materials, hazardous chemicals, and routine 

workplace hazards. In addition, LANL workers involved in low hazard operations or office 

work are trained to identify and avoid or correct potential hazards typically found in an office 

environment (e.g., tripping hazards, falls, electric shock). Because of the various health 

monitoring programs and the requirements for routine health and safety training, LANL workers 

are generally considered to be a healthy workforce with a below average incidence of injuries 

and illnesses. 

3.2.7.2 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action is not expected to have an effect on the health of any LANL workers under 

normal operating conditions (non-accident conditions). UC workers would not be directly 

involved in the construction or demolition of buildings or structures, but they would be active in 

management, site inspections, and utility hook-ups. Approximately 50 peak period UC workers 

would support construction activities. Approximately 700 UC staff would be relocated from 

Building 3-43 to the new office building and approximately 16 UC staff from Building 3-490 

would be relocated to Building 3-261. Applicable safety and health training and work-site 

criteria would be required for these office workers. Because of the limited involvement of UC 

workers in the construction of the new buildings and demolition of the old buildings and the 

relatively low health risk from office work, no effects on these workers is anticipated. 

The Proposed Action is expected to have no effect on the health of any non-UC construction or 

demolition workers under normal operation conditions. Approximately 200 peak-period 

construction and demolition workers would be actively involved in potentially hazardous 

activities such as heavy equipment operations, soil excavations, and the handling, assembly, or 

demolition of various building materials. Asbestos, lead, and photo lab chemical abatement 

work could also pose a potential health hazard to these workers. Construction activities would 

take approximately three years to complete. Demolition work would take less than one year to 

complete. Appropriate personal protection measures would be a routine part of the construction 

and demolition activities, such as personal protection device use (such as gloves, hard hats, steeltoed boots, eye shields, and ear plugs or covers). 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 39 July 26, 2001 

Potentially serious exposures to various hazards or injuries are possible during the construction 

and demolition phases of the Proposed Action. Adverse effects could range from relatively 

minor (e.g., lung irritation, cuts, or sprains) to major (e.g., lung damage, broken bones, or 

fatalities). To prevent serious exposures and injuries, all site construction contractors are 

required to submit and adhere to a Construction Safety and Health Plan (Plan). This Plan is 

reviewed and approved by UC staff before construction or demolition activities can begin. 

Following approval of this Plan, UC and DOE site inspectors would routinely verify that 

construction contractors are adhering to the plan, including applicable federal and state health 

and safety standards. In addition, UC staff would provide site-specific hazard training (e.g., 

construction safety, waste handling, etc.) to construction contractors as needed. Adherence to an 

approved Construction Safety and Health Plan and completion of appropriate hazards training 

are expected to prevent any major adverse effects on construction workers. 

3.2.7.3 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the potential for serious exposures or injuries to LANL 

workers, construction workers, and members of the public would not occur from the construction 

and operation of the proposed buildings or the demolition of existing buildings. However, the 

continued use of the existing facility would pose certain minimal health and safety hazards to UC 

office workers and subcontractor maintenance personnel for the period of continued occupancy 

of the building. Use of the building would be phased out. 

The potential for injuries to workers from structural damage would remain the same under this 

alternative. Building 3-43 does not meet DOE or Uniform Building Code seismic requirements. 

The seismic capacity of the building is only about 25 percent of that required by code. 

3.2 8 Noise 

3.2.8.1 Affected Environment 

Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound is a form of energy that travels as invisible pressure 

vibrations in various media, such as air. The auditory system of the human ear is particularly 

sensitive to sound vibrations. Noise is categorized into two types: steady-state noise, which is 

characterized as longer duration and lower intensity, such as a running motor, and impulse or 

impact noise, which is characterized by short duration and high intensity, such as the detonation 

of high explosives. The intensity of sound is measured in decibel (dB) units. In sound 

measurements relative to human auditory limits, the decibel scale is modified into an A-weighted 

frequency scale (dBA). 

Noise measured at LANL is primarily from occupational exposures. These measurements 

generally take place inside buildings and are made through the use of personal noise dosimeters 

and other noise monitoring instruments. Occupational exposure data are compared against an 

established occupational exposure limit (OEL). At LANL, the OEL is administratively defined 

as noise to which a worker may be exposed for a specific work period without probable adverse 

effects on hearing acuity. The OEL for both steady-state and impulse or impact noise is based on 

U. S. Air Force Regulation 161-35, Hazardous Noise Exposure, which has been adopted by 

DOE. The maximum permissible OEL for steady-state noise is 84 dBA for each 8-hour work 

period. The OEL for impulse and impact noise is not fixed because the number of impacts 

allowed per day varies depending on the dBA of each impact. DOE also requires that Action 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 40 July 26, 2001 

Levels (levels of exposure to workplace hazards that are below the OEL but require monitoring 

or the use of personal protective equipment) be established for noise in the workplace. Action 

Levels at LANL for steady-state noise and impulse and impact noise are 80 dBA and 140 dBA 

for each 8-hour day, respectively. 

Environmental noise levels at LANL are measured outside of buildings and away from routine 

operations. These sound levels are highly variable and are dependent on the generator. The 

following are typical examples of sound levels (dBA) generated by barking dogs (58), sport 

events (74), nearby vehicle traffic (63), aircraft overhead (66), children playing (65), and birds 

chirping (54). Sources of environmental noise at LANL consist of background sound, vehicular 

traffic, routine operations, and periodic high-explosive testing. Measurements of environmental 

noise in and around LANL facilities and operations average about 80 dBA. Some measurements 

have been made to evaluate environmental impacts from operational and high-explosive 

detonation noise. For example, the peak noise level measured at the Pulsed High-Energy 

Machine Emitting X-Rays facility from a 20-lb (9-kg) trinitrotoluene explosion ranged from 140 

to 148 dBA at a distance of 750 ft (229 m). 

The average of measured values from limited ambient environmental sampling in Los Alamos 

County were found to be consistent with expected sound levels (55 dBA) for outdoors in 

residential areas. Background sound levels at the White Rock community ranged from 38 to 51 

dBA (Burns 1995) and from 31 to 35 dBA at the entrance of Bandelier National Monument 

(Vigil 1995). The minimum and maximum values for the County ranged between 38 dBA and 

96 dBA, respectively. Ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Proposed Action are affected 

primarily by automobile traffic on Diamond Drive and West Jemez Road. Routine operations at 

the Fire Station on West Jemez Road may also be audible throughout portions of TA-3. 

3.2.8.2 Proposed Action 

Noise effects to workers may require the use of hearing protection equipment. Noise heard by 

the public or animals in the environment resulting from the Proposed Action would be at 

background levels at the edges of LANL. The erection of an office building, parking structure, 

lecture hall, and smaller support structures, as well as the demolition of some buildings would 

require the use of heavy equipment for clearing, leveling, construction, and demolition activities. 

Heavy equipment such as front-end loaders and backhoes would produce intermittent noise 

levels at around 73 to 94 dBA at 50 ft (15 m) from the work site under normal working 

conditions (Cantor 1996, Magrab 1975). Construction truck traffic would occur frequently but 

would generally produce noise levels below that of the heavy equipment. The finishing work 

within the building structures would create noise levels slightly above normal background levels 

for office work areas. Noise levels may go up to around 80 dBA at the work site if light 

machinery is used in this stage of construction (Cantor 1996). Workers would be required to 

have hearing protection if site-specific work produced noise levels above the LANL action level 

of 80 dBA for steady-state noise. Sound levels would be expected to dissipate to background 

levels at the LANL boundaries or nearby residential areas. The additional construction worker 

personal vehicular traffic would not be expected to increase the present noise level produced by 

vehicular traffic on Diamond Drive or West Jemez Road during rush hour. The vehicles of 

construction workers would remain parked during the day and would not contribute to the 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 41 July 26, 2001 

background noise levels during this time. Therefore, noise levels are not expected to exceed the 

established OEL. 

3.2.8.3 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, ambient noise levels would remain unchanged in the vicinity 

of TA-3. Potential noise from construction and demolition activities associated with the 

Proposed Action would not occur, but ongoing routine operations, vehicle traffic, and 

construction activities from other projects in the vicinity of TA-3 would continue to generate 

noise. However, the environmental noise levels in and around facilities or operations at LANL 

would be expected to remain at or below 80 dBA on average. 

3.2.9 Socioeconomic 

3.2.9.1 Affected Environment 

LANL operations in north-central New Mexico have a significant and positive influence on the 

economy of north-central New Mexico. The total funding for LANL in north-central New 

Mexico was $1.3 billion in direct expenditures in FY 1998, yielding a total economic impact of 

about $3.8 billion, including indirect and induced income, or about 30 percent of the total 

economic activity in the region. Total personal income impact was $1.11 billion in FY 1998, or 

about 26 percent of personal income derived in the three counties - Los Alamos, Santa Fe, and 

Rio Arriba. The employment multiplier was 2.84 for the region, meaning that the 9,757 average 

employment level of FY 1998 supported a total impact of 27,688. In effect, nearly one of every 

three jobs in the region was created or supported by LANL. Approximately 80 percent of the 

jobs created indirectly by LANL in the region occurred in the trade, finance, insurance, real 

estate, and services sectors (DOE/AL 1999). 

3.2.9.2 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would not have a long-term effect on socioeconomic conditions in this 

area. No increase in UC employment is anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action. The 

additional revenue generated by the construction projects would be limited in duration resulting 

in a short-term effect only. 

Construction of the office building, parking structure, and lecture hall would generate jobs and 

revenue into the local economy. Most building supplies would be purchased in New Mexico. 

During peak construction approximately 200 construction workers may be working on these new 

facilities. Close to $112 million would be spent on construction and design and oversight 

contracts. Approximately one-half of this amount would be for labor and one-half for materials. 

Construction is scheduled to take approximately three years beginning in early 2003. The 

removal of Building 3-490 would begin in 2003 but would take less than two months to 

complete. The removal of Building 3-43 is expected to begin in 2006 and last approximately 6 

to 12 months. There would be no increase in the number of employees as a result of this project, 

and the additional 200 peak construction jobs would be filled by the existing employees in the 

regional work force, which includes mostly Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, and Santa Fe Counties. 

Because these temporary jobs would be filled by existing regional work force, there would be no 

effect on area population or increase in the demand for housing or public services in the region. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 42 July 26, 2001 

3.2.9.3 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no socioeconomic benefits realized as a result 

of the construction of these facilities. Construction and demolition actions would not occur and 

therefore no construction or waste disposal associated revenue would be generated for the local 

economy. 

3.2.10 Water Quality 

3.2.10.1 Affected Environment 

Data and analysis of LANL surface and groundwater quality samples taken from test wells 

indicate that LANL operations and activities have affected the surface water within LANL 

boundaries and some of the alluvial and intermediate perched zones in the LANL region. Details 

on the surface and groundwater quality can be found in the annual LANL Environmental 

Surveillance and Compliance Report (LANL 2000c). 

Radiation (gross alpha, gross beta, and gross gamma) and radionuclide levels in surface waters 

are generally below and close to analytical detection limits and well below drinking water and 

public dose standards. Metals in surface water samples are typically below applicable standards 

when the samples are filtered before analysis. However, metal concentrations exceeding 

drinking water standards are relatively wide spread when samples are not filtered. Plutonium 

concentrations exceed regional comparison values in several sediment samples. In general, 

while some sediment samples exceed regional comparison value concentrations for metal, most 

of these metals may occur naturally in the sediments. The exception to this is selenium in 

sediments from upper Los Alamos Canyon, which far exceeds regional comparison 

concentrations (DOE 1999c). 

In the regional acquifier, which serves LANL and Los Alamos County, drinking water standards 

were met for all radionuclides in all samples collected from 1990 through 1994. Trace amounts 

of tritium, plutonium, americium, and strontium have been detected, however, but not in the 

water supply wells. Organic compounds have also been detected in samples from test wells at 

TA-49, and nitrate has been detected down-canyon from the Bayo Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

Contaminants also have been detected in alluvial and intermediate perched groundwater (DOE 

1999c). 

3.2.10.2 Proposed Action 

The water quality in this area would not be affected by the Proposed Action. The plumbing for 

the new office building would be separated from LANL’s potable water supply system by an 

approved backflow prevention device located immediately downstream of the service entrance to 

the facility. Because of the new potable water piping, the piping would need to be inspected for 

any cross connections by certified LANL personnel. 

BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and migration of disturbed soil from the site 

caused by storm water or other water discharges or wind. No placement of excavation spoils in 

or near drainage swales or storm drains would occur. Excavated materials would be properly 

disposed of either on-site or at an appropriate receiving site. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 43 July 26, 2001 

Water quality would not change as a result of operations of the new office building. Storm water 

runoff from the new office building and parking structure would be managed under the SWPP 

Plan. 

3.2.10.3 No Action Alternative 

There would not be any difference in water quality under the No Action Alternative as under the 

Proposed Action. The number of discharge points would remain the same. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 44 July 26, 2001 

(This page intentionally left blank.)
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 45 July 26, 2001 

4.0 Accident Analysis 

Candidate hazards for accident analysis include actions involving personal injury, electricity, 

explosive materials, pressurized systems, cryogenics, biohazards, radiation, hazardous chemicals, 

combustible materials, inadvertent criticality, toxic gas leaks, and asphyxiants. These types of 

hazards are potentially included within site-wide accidents, such as initiated by natural 

phenomena, operational accidents, or transportation accidents. 

4.1 Construction and Demolition 

Hazards have the potential to affect the public or workers, depending on the type of accident that 

may occur. The Proposed Action of constructing three structures and demolishing an existing 

structure presents many construction-type low-effect hazards that are common to standard 

industry. There may also be some hazardous chemicals associated with the demolition activity 

as caused by the presence of asbestos, lead, beryllium, and photochemicals. These materials 

would require appropriate characterization and handling. Transportation of these waste types 

and more innocuous waste would also be expected, creating the potential for transportation 

accidents. The likelihood of serious injury or death resulting from transportation accidents is 

addressed below. 

Regarding operations in the replacement office building, potential hazards are assumed to be the 

same as in Building 3-43. The LANL SWEIS (DOE 1999a) provides an overall baseline for 

LANL from which potential accident hazards may be analyzed. Since no changes in operations 

of the new building are expected, the hazard and accident spectrum established in the SWEIS 

provides an “envelope” that adequately identifies hazards and encompasses any risks associated 

with operating the new office building. This includes any risk to tenants of the new building that 

comes from operation of other facilities at LANL, leaving only the risk associated with 

construction, including demolition, to be considered new activities. 

No fatalities are expected during the construction and demolition stages of this project. The 

1993 incidence rate of serious injury or illness and death for all types of construction reported by 

the National Safety Council was 0.89 per 100 full-time employees (NSC 1994). Eliminating the 

injury or illness rate results in an annual death rate of 0.05 deaths per 100 full-time employees. 

Twenty percent of this rate is from a type of construction (“heavy construction, except building”) 

not pertinent to the Proposed Action, which further lowers the rate to 0.04 deaths per 100 fulltime employees. At peak employment (200 construction workers), the estimated likelihood of a 

fatality is less than one (0.08 deaths per 200 full-time employees) for the total population of 

workers. Rates of accidents particular to demolition are unknown, but they are assumed to be 

similar to the accident rates of construction industry activities. 

4.2 Transportation 

The chance of a disabling injury occurring to a driver of a medium or heavy truck hauling 

hazardous waste is about 1.3 in ten thousand. Section 3.2.2 includes estimates of the number of 

trips by waste type expected to transport waste off-site. In 1993, there were 42,000 deaths in the 

U.S. from motor vehicle accidents out of 175 million licensed drivers. Medium and heavy 

(greater than 10,000 pounds [4,536 kilograms]) trucks accounted for about 9.1 percent of these. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 46 July 26, 2001 

Based on these statistics, an individual driver that transports sanitary, construction, demolition, 

and aggregate waste has a likelihood of a fatality of about 0.2 in ten thousand. With the same 

assumptions, but factoring in the shorter duration of about 0.125 years for transport of the 

hazardous waste (Table 2), the chance of a fatality occurring to a driver of a medium or heavy 

truck hauling hazardous waste (asbestos, lead, beryllium, and photochemicals) is further reduced 

to about 0.03 in ten thousand. In the same year there were about 2,000,000 disabling injuries. 

The chance of a disabling injury occurring to a driver of a medium or heavy truck hauling 

sanitary waste is a about 11 in ten thousand. 

4.3 Operations 

Building three structures and demolishing two buildings bring with them an increased chance of 

an accident. However, once the project is completed there would be a reduction of risk to 

tenants of the new office building associated with better protection from hazards such as those 

created by earthquakes. Since the current DOE building safety codes and other standards are 

more protective than they were in the 1950s when Building 3-43 was constructed, the tenants of 

the new building should experience less risk to hazards during the operational stage. 

In summary, during its operation, the proposed office building would be classified as a low 

hazard category with hazards that would not pose any unusual threat to the public, workers, or 

the environment (Bretzke 2000). This hazard classification is not associated with nuclear 

operations. Most of the potential hazards associated with a low hazard category facility are 

adequately managed through the use of standards applicable to construction and operations. 

External hazards, such as those posed by nearby nuclear facilities, hazardous material 

inventories, or chemical warehouses, pose risks that are the same as those posed to Building 3-43 

and, as such, are addressed in the 1999 LANL SWEIS. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 47 July 26, 2001 

5.0 Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects on the environment result from the incremental effect of an action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency 

or person undertakes them. These effects can result from individually minor, but collectively 

significant, actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). This section considers 

the cumulative effects resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Action and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions in the TA-3 area and adjacent lands. 

5.1 LANL Operations at TA-3 

No new types of operations and no new personnel would be introduced into LANL as a result of 

the Proposed Action. Land use within TA-3 would remain unchanged. Local traffic congestion 

centered around West Jemez Road, Diamond Drive, East Jemez Road, and Casa Grande Drive 

would be affected by the addition of approximately 32 vehicle trips per day (assuming 36 

transferred employees and 0.45 cars per employee) during each morning and evening rush hour. 

The addition of SCC, NISC, and the Los Alamos Research Park (located within the northern 

edge of TA-3 on leased DOE-administered property that is within the LANL boundaries) will 

result in an increase in the TA-3 traffic congestion by adding an estimated total of 2,300 to 3,000 

vehicle trips per day when all three facilities are completed. The TA-3 area already suffers from 

over-crowded intersections during rush hours; this problem will become more severe as the Los 

Alamos Research Park is completely developed over the next 7 to 8 years (estimated date for 

complete build-out is April 2007; there may be a slight delay thereafter until full occupancy is 

achieved) as most of this traffic will result from the Los Alamos Research Park occupation. The 

first building in the Los Alamos Research Park was completed in March 2001 and is expected to 

provide space for three to four hundred workers. Additionally, within the next four to five years, 

construction of a new office building to replace the current DOE Los Alamos Area Office 

(LAAO) Building at TA-43 is being contemplated for TA-3. This would add about 100 new 

workers to the TA-3 traffic burden. Traffic studies of TA-3 have already identified several 

recommended changes that would help alleviate the traffic congestion within this area, but no 

road realignment work has been proposed and funded yet. It is anticipated that this may occur at 

some future date within the next decade. 

Parking availability in the TA-3 area would change from the current configuration because of the 

effects of the Proposed Action. The addition of about 780 new parking spaces, attributed to the 

combined relocation of government vehicle parking and the new parking structure that is a part 

of the Proposed Action, would benefit the entire TA-3 area. Additionally, upon completion of 

the SCC and NISC, additional parking space that is now unavailable for use because of its being 

used for equipment and building material lay down areas will become available for vehicle 

parking. The Los Alamos Research Park will have its own parking spaces and will therefore 

have no effect on the rest of TA-3’s parking needs. The new DOE LAAO Building would have 

its own parking for the 100 additional workers it would bring to TA-3. Construction of this 

building would eliminate some current parking spaces in this area, but that number is unknown at 

this time. Other additional construction and demolition work conducted over the next 10 years 

within TA-3 would include several relatively minor activities that are anticipated to result in little 

overall effect with regards to parking space needs. Actions would likely include the construction 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 48 July 26, 2001 

and removal of several small buildings and structures and the decontamination and demolition of 

some other facilities. 

The overall visual quality within TA-3 would change with the soon to be completed SCC, NISC, 

and Research Park structures. These buildings are anticipated to be constructed using modern 

designs and construction materials. As the first major buildings constructed in the last 40 years 

within TA-3, they are noticeably different from the designs and materials used in the older 

structures that make up the bulk of the TA-3 area. The addition of the new office building, 

parking structure, and lecture hall would contribute further to the visual improvements in the 

TA-3 area by removing the old Building 3-43. From a distance, though, the SCC, NISC, 

Research Park, and new office building and parking structure would cause an increase in the 

number of visually disruptive elements against the natural lines of the background landscape. 

The negative effects on viewsheds of regional development and slight increased lighting in the 

night sky would be considered to be a regional impact. The Proposed Action is not expected to 

be a major contributor to this effect however as the parking area the new parking structure 

replaces is already lighted and the new office building would decrease the amount of light that 

would be visible at night because its design would eliminate many office windows. 

Implementing the Proposed Action would generate noise primarily during the daytime hours 

during construction and demolition activities. This noise generation would be mostly confined to 

the immediate TA-3 area and would mostly be heard by the involved workers. However, there 

may be additional noise generation occurring at the Los Alamos Research Park at TA-3 within 

the same time period. This noise cumulatively may be audible for short periods of time during 

the daytime hours to workers within TA-3 and possibly beyond TA-3. Due to the general 

manner in which sound attenuates across mesas and canyons, residents located across the canyon 

from TA-3 should not be disturbed by the sounds originating from these projects. 

The Proposed Action, together with other planned or ongoing construction activities at LANL, 

are expected to have a cumulative beneficial effect on worker health at LANL under normal 

operations. Cumulative potential adverse health effects to construction workers should be 

minimal and cumulative beneficial or adverse effects on public health are not expected to occur 

under normal conditions. 

Workers at LANL would benefit from the replacement of potentially substandard facilities with 

new structures that meet current DOE and Uniform Building Codes. Substandard working 

conditions would be alleviated by the Proposed Action and other construction activities at LANL 

that improve individual working conditions. Improved parking conditions under the Proposed 

Action would also reduce the risk of pedestrian and automobile accidents from all activities 

conducted at TA-3. The cumulative increase in the amount of construction activity would 

increase the risk of construction worker injuries. However, because of rigorous health and safety 

requirements at LANL and based on industry injury rates of 0.04 deaths per 100 full time 

workers, the potential for a major injury or fatality from all new construction activities at LANL 

would be expected to remain low. Since members of the public do not live or work in the 

vicinity of the Proposed Action or other new facilities at LANL, they would not be affected by 

these activities. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 49 July 26, 2001 

5.2 Nearby Areas within LANL and Off-site Areas Administered by Others 

Other activities that will likely occur at or nearby to TA-3 over the next 10 years include the 

conveyance of a 15-acre (ac) (6-hectare [ha]) portion of TA-43 to the County of Los Alamos, the 

subsequent demolition of the existing DOE LAAO Building at TA-43, and the construction of 

multistoried residential units in place of the DOE LAAO Building and over its immediate 

surrounding area. Construction of housing within the County of Los Alamos to replace housing 

units lost during the 2000 Cerro Grande fire will likely continue over the next several years (until 

or through about 2005). These actions will add to the overall amount of construction activities 

within the County and the number and availability of construction materials, workers, and local 

housing in the vicinity. Traffic into and out of Los Alamos County is expected to increase over 

the current levels because of the trips made by construction workers and the transport of 

materials. The visual character of the newly constructed buildings is expected to have a slight 

positive effect on the visual character of LANL and Los Alamos County and is not expected to 

result in but a very slight increase in night time lighting of the area. The overall “footprint” of 

urban development within Los Alamos County is expected to change slightly over the next 10 to 

15 years. The possible development of Rendija Canyon would be a change as contemplated by 

the County of Los Alamos when NNSA conveys that tract to the County for their use 

(anticipated to occur before the end of 2007). 

NNSA, the Forest Service, Bandelier National Monument, and the County will also be 

conducting wildfire hazard reduction activities that will include forest thinning activities over the 

Pajarito Plateau (including within LANL) and possibly some prescription burns outside the areas 

of immediate LANL and urban interfaces within the forested areas nearby. The resulting forest 

areas in and around LANL will be much more open in appearance than they are currently. The 

hazards from wildfires are expected to be reduced. Although wildfires would still occur, they 

would be much easier to bring under control and manage as lower and mid-level fires rather than 

as crown fires of the type exemplified by the Cerro Grande fire. Within LANL, forests will be 

managed according to the Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Forest Health Improvement Program, 

with specific project plans, such as the Wildfire Hazard Reduction Project Plan (LANL 2001b). 

Use of the forest areas west and south of LANL and Los Alamos County for recreation, habitat 

management purposes, and timber production (only within the Santa Fe National Forest) should 

remain unchanged. Critical habitat areas for the Mexican spotted owl have been established by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the Pajarito Plateau areas outside of LANL, and one 

area within LANL has been identified as being historically occupied by the Mexican spotted owl 

and is protected by NNSA as well. These areas will continue to be managed for the foreseeable 

future as appropriate for recovery of that species. Within LANL, potential or historically 

occupied habitat of Federally protected, threatened, or endangered species is managed in 

accordance with the LANL Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Management Plan 

(discussed earlier). Additional management plans for biota at LANL are being developed 

cooperatively by NNSA and UC. 

There may be some facility construction at LANL over the next 10 years in the vicinity of TA55. One proposed action is to build a building at TA-55 to house the TA-18 critical assembly 

and material storage operations; another proposed action is to construct a new electric power line 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 50 July 26, 2001 

from the general White Rock area up slope to the TA-8 area. Another proposed action is the 

construction of a new interagency Emergency Operations Center at TA-69. 

Proposed actions elsewhere within LANL include 1) the decontamination of TA-18 facilities 

within Pajarito Canyon and their possible demolition (in whole or in part); 2) the demolition of 

the TA-2 and TA-41 structures and buildings within Los Alamos Canyon; and 3) some smallscale building and structure construction and demolition activities within the TA-8 and TA-16 

areas. Additional construction and demolition actions may be proposed at TA-3, TA-55, and 

other technical areas at LANL to replace aging structures and facilities. These are currently only 

contemplated in very general terms. These generally contemplated actions could include some 

additional construction and demolition work as infrastructure, structures, and buildings approach 

50 years of continuous use. 

The overall amount of developed area within LANL is expected to only slightly expand over the 

next 10 to 15 years. Overall electric utility use and potable water use within LANL is expected 

to remain fairly constant after the SCC comes on line. Actions taken by UC to conserve and 

reduce usage of water and generation of waste during operations should actually decrease as 

various reuses of waste water and waste materials is undertaken over the next several years. The 

use of “gray water” from the LANL sewage treatment plant at the cooling towers for SCC is the 

first step. 

Waste volume generation during the next 10 years from decontamination and demolition of 

buildings and through environmental restoration efforts will be large. The waste will likely be of 

a variety of types, including non-hazardous waste, hazardous wastes, mixed wastes, and 

radioactive wastes (of both low level and transuranic [TRU] wastes). The Los Alamos County 

Landfill is anticipated to be closed within the next three years. LANL, along with the County, 

will have to dispose of their waste at another off-site solid waste disposal facility(s). Low-level 

radioactive waste is disposed of at Area G at LANL; this disposal site has adequate room to 

accommodate waste generation estimates beyond the next 10 years as identified in the 1999 

LANL SWEIS and Record of Decision (ROD). TRU waste generated at LANL from 

environmental restoration activities would be managed and stored at LANL. No disposal path is 

currently available for the non-defense generated waste type. Mixed wastes (both low-level 

mixed and TRU-mixed wastes) are managed and stored at LANL or treated and disposed of at 

off-site facilities. Hazardous wastes generated at LANL are managed and stored on-site and 

shipped off-site for treatment and disposal as adequate and appropriate facilities become 

available. Detailed projections of wastes by types are provided in the 1997 Final Waste 

Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, 

and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste and DOE’s subsequent ROD’s based on that 

analysis. Additionally, the waste generated at LANL over the next 10 years will be managed in 

accordance with the analysis provided in the 1999 LANL SWEIS and the DOE’s ROD. The 

implementation of the Proposed Action considered in this EA together with other site waste 

generations would be in accordance with DOE’s RODs and is not expected to result in any waste 

generation projection exceedances. Cleanup from the Cerro Grande fire has mostly been 

accomplished; waste generation within the County of Los Alamos peaked in mid to late 2000 

and early 2001. Waste generation is now within its historical range and no anticipated actions 

are expected that would result in greater than normal waste generation levels over the next 10 

years. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 51 July 26, 2001 

Los Alamos County and LANL have historically been attainment areas for air quality with 

regards to criteria pollutants; visibility has also always been excellent. Implementation of the 

Proposed Action is not expected to change the overall air quality of the Pajarito Plateau. With 

the anticipated increase in the number of acres of forest to be treated over the next 10 years 

across New Mexico, which will include the use of prescribed burns, the number of days when 

visibility may be lessened will increase but overall air quality is not expected to be lessened. The 

issuance of burn permits by the State of New Mexico will be coordinated so that burning in the 

immediate LANL and Los Alamos County location will be staggered among the Agencies that 

use this treatment method. DOE does not currently use burning as a forest treatment method but 

may make a decision to do so within the next 10 years. If so, this forest treatment method would 

be coordinated with the State of New Mexico and the Interagency Wildfire Management Team, a 

cooperative organization of land stewards across the Pajarito Plateau formed to communicate and 

provide support and action recommendations. 

Data and analysis of LANL surface and groundwater quality samples taken from test wells 

indicate that LANL operations and activities have influenced the surface water within LANL 

boundaries and some of the alluvial and intermediate perched zones within the LANL region. 

Detail on the surface and groundwater quality can be found in the annual LANL Environmental 

Surveillance and Compliance Report (LANL 2000c). No LANL activities or projects are 

foreseen over the next 10 years that would cause increased deterioration of the surface and 

groundwater quality in the region. 

Cultural resources are prevalent over the Pajarito Plateau, particularly in the case of prehistoric 

sites. Historic sites of the Manhattan Project and that represent the homesteading period in New 

Mexico’s past are becoming few to rare as time passes. Wooden structures deteriorate and have 

been burned over the past 125 years. Structures representing the Cold War period are now 

approaching 50 years old in many cases. Many of the industrial structures of the Cold War 

period within Los Alamos County are located at LANL. There are many of these structures as 

the period extends over about a 30-year period. DOE and UC are in the process of developing 

the LANL Cultural Resources Management Plan; this plan will eventually include a detailed 

assessment of its Cold War sites and structures. DOE will determine which of these Cold War 

sites to consider for constructive reuse or refurbishment and which sites would eventually be 

demolished. The preservation of both industrial sites and homes within Los Alamos County will 

largely be a function of individuals as the County has little property under its direct ownership 

control. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 52 July 26, 2001 

(This page intentionally left blank.)
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 53 July 26, 2001 

6.0 Agencies Consulted 

A NRHP Eligibility Assessment Report has been submitted to the SHPO for comment and 

concurrence on its eligibility. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has been notified 

of the adverse effect to an historic property. 

Because the demolition of this building is an adverse effect to the property, a plan for mitigation 

of the adverse effect would have to be negotiated between the SHPO and the DOE. This plan 

can include activities such as archival large-format photos, compiling existing drawings, 

preparing a current set of as-builts, preparing a detailed report on the history of the building, and 

conducting interviews with persons who work or worked in the building. This work would have 

to be completed before any demolition work on the building. 

NNSA has determined that no consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the 

potential effect of the Proposed Action on federally protected threatened or endangered species 

or their critical habitat is necessary as there would be no effect to these sensitive species or their 

critical habitat from the Proposed Action. 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 54 July 26, 2001 

(This page intentionally left blank.)
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 55 July 26, 2001 

7.0 References 

Bachmeier 2001 Conversation between Ray Sisneros, Los Alamos County Solid Waste 

Manager, and Craig Bachmeier, Los Alamos National Laboratory, PM-DS 

(February 2001). 

Bretzke 2000 Memorandum from J. Bretzke, Los Alamos National Laboratory, PMDS, 

regarding “Facility Hazard Categorization,” Los Alamos National Laboratory 

memorandum PM-DS/SM-43:2000-004 (December 5, 2000). 

Burns 1995 M.J. Burns, “White Rock Noise Measurements during PHERMEX Tests, 11 

March 1995,” Los Alamos National Laboratory memorandum no. DXDO:DARHT-95-31 (March 13, 1995). 

Cantor 1996 L. Cantor, Environmental Impact Assessment, McGraw-Hill, Inc., second 

edition, New York, NY (1996). 

Creedon 2001 Memorandum from Madelyn R. Creedon, DOE Deputy Administrator for 

Defense Programs, regarding “Defense Programs Ten Year Comprehensive 

Site Plan Guidance” (January 2, 2001). 

DOE 1993 U.S. Department of Energy, “Recommendations for the Preparation of 

Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements,” U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Oversight (May 1993). 

DOE 1998a U.S. Department of Energy, “Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 

Strategic Computing Complex, Los Alamos National Laboratory,” DOE/EA1250 (December 18, 1998). 

DOE 1998b U.S. Department of Energy, “Land Transfer Report to Congress under Public 

Law 105-119, A Preliminary Identification of Parcels of Land in Los Alamos, 

New Mexico for Conveyance or Transfer” (1998). 

DOE 1999a U.S. Department of Energy, “Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Continued Operation of Los Alamos National Laboratory,” DOE/EIS0238, Albuquerque Operations Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 4 volumes 

(January 1999). 

DOE 1999b U.S. Department of Energy, “Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 

Construction and Operation of the Nonproliferation and International Security 

Center,” DOE/EA-1238 (July 1999). 

DOE 1999c U.S. Department of Energy, “Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Conveyance and Transfer of Certain Land Tracts Administered by the U.S. 

Department of Energy and Located at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los 

Alamos and Santa Fe Counties, New Mexico, DOE/EIS-0293 (October 1999). 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 56 July 26, 2001 

DOE 2000 U.S. Department of Energy, “Special Environmental Analysis for the 

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Actions 

Taken in Response to the Cerro Grande Fire at Los Alamos National 

Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico,” DOE/SEA-03 (September 2000). 

DOE/AL 1999 U.S. Department of Energy, Albuquerque Operations Office, “Los Alamos 

National Laboratory Economic Impact-Fiscal Year 1998,” In cooperation with 

Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Agriculture and Home 

Economics, New Mexico State University (August 5, 1999). 

DOE N 450.4 U.S. Department of Energy, “Assignment of Responsibilities for Executive 

Order 13148, Greening the Government Through Leadership in 

Environmental Management” (February 5, 2001). 

DOE-STD-1021-93 U.S. Department of Energy, DOE-STD-1023-95, “Natural Phenomena 

Hazards Performance Categorization Guidelines for Structures, Systems, and 

Components,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C., Change Notice 

#1 (January 1996). 

LANL 1999a Los Alamos National Laboratory, “LANL Facilities Engineering Standards 

Manual, Chapter V, Structural,” Revision 0, Los Alamos National Laboratory 

(June 28, 1999). 

LANL 1999b Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Comprehensive Site Plan 2000,” LA-UR99-6704 (January 31, 2000). 

LANL 2000a Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Conceptual Design Plan – SM-43 

Replacement Project,” LA-13768-P (November 2000). 

LANL 2000b Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Environmental Surveillance and 

Compliance at Los Alamos During 1999 – 30th Anniversary Edition Report,” 

LA-13775-ENV (December 2000). 

LANL 2001a “Administration Building (SM-43) Occupancy Reduction Plan for the Las 

Alamos National Laboratory Technical Area 3,” Betty S. Martinez, FWO 

Building Manager (January 2001). 

LANL 2001b Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Fire and 

Health Improvement Plan,” LA-UR-01-2017 (April 2001). 

Magrab 1975 E.B. Magrab, Environmental Noise Control, Wiley-Interscience Publication, 

John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY (1975). 

NSC 1994 National Safety Council, “Accident Facts, 1994 Edition,” Itasca, IL (1994). 

Pava 1999 Parking data collected by Dan Pava, Los Alamos National Laboratory, ESH20, from maps maintained and stored at PM-1 (Planning Group) at Los 

Alamos National Laboratory (September 1999). 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 57 July 26, 2001 

Vigil 1995 E.A. Vigil, “Noise Measurement at State Road 4 and Bandelier Turn-Off at 

State Road 4 during PHERMEX Test on March 11, 1995,” Los Alamos 

National Laboratory memorandum no. ESH-5:95-11825 (March 17, 1995). 

10 CFR Part 1021 “National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Procedures,” Title 

10, Energy; Chapter X, “U.S. Department of Energy (General Provisions);” 

Code of Federal Regulations; National Archives and Records Administration, 

Washington D.C. (January 1, 1998). 

36 CFR Part 800.5 “Protection of Historic Properties,” Title 36, “Parks, Forests, and Public 

Property,” Chapter VIII, “Advisory Council on Historic Preservation;” Code 

of Federal Regulations; National Archives and Records Administration, 

Washington D.C. (January 1, 1998). 

40 CFR Parts 1500–1508 “Council on Environmental Quality,” Title 40, “Protection of 

Environment,” Code of Federal Regulations; National Archives and Records 

Administration, Washington D.C. (January 1, 1998). 
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Office Building and Related Structures

NNSA/LAAO 58 July 26, 2001 

(This page intentionally left blank.)