Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Chemistry and ...

Summary
Construction Option 4: Construct a consolidated nuclear SNM-capable Hazard Category 2
laboratory below ground with a separate building to house administrative offices and support
functions (total of two buildings).
S.2.2
Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail
A number of alternatives were considered but were not analyzed in detail in the CMRR EIS. As
required in the CEQ’s NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.14[a]), the reasons for elimination from
detailed study are discussed in this section. Alternatives may have been eliminated from further
consideration because of technical immaturity, prohibitive cost, regulatory unacceptability,
failure to meet siting criteria, or because they do not support the purpose and need of the EIS.
Removing CMR Capabilities from LANL or Altering the Operational Level of
Capabilities: The alternative of removing CMR capabilities from LANL or altering the
operational level of these capabilities was considered and dismissed. DOE considered
maintaining CMR capabilities (along with other capabilities at LANL) in 1996 as part of the
review of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program and made programmatic
decisions at that time that required the retention of CMR capabilities at LANL. In 1999, DOE,
through its LANL SWEIS analyses, concluded that specific decisions regarding the replacement of
the CMR Building for its continued operations and capabilities support were not then mature due
to the lack of information regarding the proposal(s). With the support of the LANL SWEIS
impact analysis, however, DOE made a decision on the level of operations at LANL that included
the level of operational capabilities housed by the CMR Building. Having made these critical
decisions related to the maintenance of CMR capabilities at LANL to support critical NNSA
missions within the past 7 years, NNSA will not revisit them.
Considering the CMRR Project as Part of the “Integrated Nuclear Planning” Initiative at
TA-55: The option of including the CMRR Project environmental review as part of the INP
initiative for TA-55 was considered and dismissed. The various potential LANL Security
Category I nuclear facilities are independent of one another in terms of their individual
operations and the capabilities they house; the existing structures are of differing ages and
therefore replacement of the aging structures would become necessary at different times; the
construction of major facilities within a relatively tight geographic area would require that they
be staggered so that the area can physically accommodate the necessary construction laydown
sites and storage areas needed; and the additional security elements required for the construction
and startup of operations in Hazard Category 2 nuclear facilities also predicates the need for their
separate construction in terms of schedule. Based on the recent TA-18 EIS, NNSA made a
decision to move the TA-18 capabilities and materials to another DOE site away from LANL and
TA-55. NNSA is separately considering the construction and operation of a pit manufacturing
facility on a scale greater than can currently be accommodated by LANL’s existing facilities and
is considering TA-55 as a possible site. NNSA will eventually need to consider decisions on
relocating or upgrading the aging TA-55 LANL Plutonium Facility, which is about 30 years old;
however, any proposal for such a project is very speculative and a decision would not be
appropriate at this time.
S-19