• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

5.5 DISCONTINUE MANAGEMENT BY UC

5.5.1 DESCRIPTION

As discussed in section 3.2.4, this alternative would occur if UC and/or DOE chose to discontinue UC management of the LLNL Livermore site and LLNL Site 300. This alternative does not apply to SNL, Livermore, which is managed by a private company, Sandia Corporation.

Under this alternative, it is assumed that DOE would select another contractor to manage and operate LLNL at the same operational level described in the EIS/EIR proposed action or one of the alternatives.

5.5.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS

Impacts of this alternative cannot be fully assessed at this time because potential impacts depend upon the level of operations selected by DOE and its operating contractor. If the work force, level of operations, and future projects remain the same, for example, the environmental effects would remain largely as described in section 5.1 above.

Discontinuation of UC's management of LLNL could adversely impact the Laboratory's ability to fulfill its mission. In one instance, the increased difficulty of coordinating activities between LLNL and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory would affect the cohesiveness needed to foster LLNL's national scientific leadership and technological innovation. Even though alternative management might promote continued cooperation between LLNL and UC, coordination of activities between the two institutions would become increasingly difficult as each alters future strategies and expectations.

In addition to a scientific staff made up in part of University professors and instructors, LLNL offers graduate education opportunities, most apparently in its cooperative program with the University of California, Davis, Department of Applied Science. Impaired coordination between UC and LLNL's alternative management could limit the availability of LLNL's advanced research and development facilities to students, affecting LLNL's ability to educate and train future generations of scientists and engineers.

Under alternative management, increasingly difficult coordination between UC's scientists, engineers, and professors and LLNL could reduce the quality of research and development produced at the Laboratory. Deterioration of the quality of research and development could, in turn, reduce opportunity and capacity for technology transfer.

Beyond these effects, UC would realize a loss in its management allowance from DOE. The present UC allowance is about $14 million, covering the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and the Los Alamos National Laboratory as well as LLNL; the share attributable to managing LLNL would be somewhat less than half this amount. Additionally, arrangements would have to be made for transferring the benefit programs of some 12,000 employees to the new contractor.