Are America’s plutonium pits too old to perform in the new Cold War? Or are new ones necessary?
“To look at short-term change [in plutonium pits], scientists have created experiments sensitive enough to detect what happens in real time. There are caveats, though. “There seems to be a corrective mechanism that heals some of that change on longer time scales,” according to Dylan Spaulding, who studies the issue of pit aging for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Raymond Jeanloz agrees: “Something happens over longer time periods that makes [the metal] almost as good as new or maybe as good as new over time periods of 10 or 20 years or more.”
Sprinkled across five western states, in silos buried deep underground and protected by reinforced concrete, sit 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles. Each of those missiles is equipped with a single nuclear warhead. And each of those warheads is itself equipped with one hollow, grapefruit-sized plutonium pit, designed to trigger a string of deadly reactions.
All of those missiles are on “hair-trigger alert,” poised for hundreds of targets in Russia — any one of which could raze all of downtown Moscow and cause hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Except — what if it doesn’t? What if, in a nuclear exchange, the pit fizzles because it’s just too old? In that case, would the weapon be a total dud or simply yield but a fraction of its latent power?
Outwardly, at least, that’s the question driving a whole new era of plutonium pit production at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility in South Carolina.
“The issue of plutonium pit aging is a Trojan horse for the nuclear weaponeers enriching themselves through a dangerous new arms race,” said Jay Coghlan, executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, an anti-nuclear group based in Santa Fe. “Future pit production is not about maintaining the existing, extensively tested stockpile. Instead, it’s for deploying multiple new warheads on new intercontinental ballistic missiles.”
Jay Coghlan, the executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, successfully lobbied former U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman in 2006 for an amendment to require a plutonium pit aging study by the group of scientists called JASON. Nadav Soroker/Searchlight New Mexico Nadav Soroker
Release of federal FY 2025 budget expected March 11 (it will initially be just topline numbers).
Meanwhile on the FY 2024 budget: House and Senate Armed Services Committee authorized funding exceeding Biden’s request, including money for the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile and nuclear warhead (reminder: that the President doesn’t want), plus adding $$ for plutonium pit production at the Savannah River Site. But appropriations bills are still not happening because of ever increasing congressional dysfunction. This is now best exemplified by Republicans rejecting an immigration bill they initially drafted but that Trump denounced because he wanted immigration to remain a hot issue during the presidential election campaign.
The current second “laddered” Continuing Resolution that is keeping the government running expires March 1 and 8.
Sen. Heinrich is so proud of all of the nuclear weapons money in New Mexico. He is one of the chief congressional architects of expanded production of plutonium “pit” bomb cores and sits on the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee from where he can direct $$billions to the Sandia and Los Alamos Labs.
But during the Department of Energy’s long presence in the Land of Enchantment, according to Census Bureau data New Mexico has slid in per capita income from 32nd in 1959 to 47th in 2022. New Mexico has the most children living in poverty (30%) and is rated dead last in well-being of children and quality of public education. Finally, in a report that the Los Alamos Lab tried to suppress, six county governments surrounding Los Alamos County suffer a net economic loss from LANL.
In fiscal year 2024 DOE will spend $10 billion in New Mexico, 75% for core nuclear weapons research and production programs and 5% for dumping related radioactive wastes in our state. DOE’s budget is 6% greater than the entire operating budget of the State of New Mexico ($9.4 billion).
Senator Heinrich, please explain what good all that nuclear weapons money does for average New Mexicans, and not just for the privileged nuclear weapons enclaves.
The federal agency and the lab also have resisted conducting public reviews of pit production, though mishaps and safety infractions are likely to grow more frequent, said Jay Coghlan, executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico.
“LANL knows that chronic nuclear safety incidences will increase with expanded plutonium pit production for the new nuclear arms race, which in turn would cause greater public resistance,” Coghlan said.
Radiological control technicians simulate work processes in a glove box training facility in 2021. A sealed compartment with safety gloves attached caught fire at Los Alamos National Laboratory in November, resulting in officials shutting down a portion of the site’s plutonium facility for 10 days, according to the lab’s and government watchdogs’ reports. Courtesy Carlos Trujillo/Los Alamos National Laboratory
A sealed compartment with safety gloves attached caught fire at Los Alamos National Laboratory in November, resulting in officials shutting down a portion of the site’s plutonium facility for 10 days, according to the lab’s and government watchdogs’ reports.
Employees were pulverizing 40-year-old legacy materials that were removed from the facility to create more storage and work space when they saw a flash and then a fire inside one of the glove boxes they were using for the task, according to a Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board report.
They deactivated the equipment, sounded alarms and promptly left the room. They and other facility workers evacuated the building.
RECA supporters face setback after House omits compensation from defense bill / KOB4 kob.com/new-Mexico/reca-supporters-face-setback-after-house-omits-compensation-from-defense-bill/
Nuclear weapons issues
Final conference by Senate and House Armed Services Committee deleted expansion of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act that would have covered Trinity Test Downwinders, among others. In contrast, it authorized tens of billions for expanding nuclear weapons programs. So, it’s nothing for those harmed by nuclear weapons testing and production in New Mexico, but radical expansion of those programs that did harm them.
The FY 2024 Defense Authorization Act added money above Biden’s request for pit production at the Savannah River Site and the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile and its new nuclear warhead. The Biden Administration opposed the SLCM, but Congress authorized it anyway.
LANL SWEIS
The 2020 Supplement Analysis that we had robustly critiqued with comprehensive formal comments, which DOE/NNSA have ignored, contains analysis of pit production based solely off the 2008 SWEIS pit analysis. Our single biggest point in the 2020 SA comments was the need for a programmatic environmental impact statement on expanded plutonium pit production.
New bomb: The Pentagon has announced a new nuclear bomb, the B61-13. The B61-12 is now in production and will be forward deployed in Europe. But it has a dial-a-yield that maxes out at 50 kilotons. The new B61-13 will max out at 360 kt to get at hardened deeply buried targets (both have limited earth-penetrating capabilities). At one time, production of the B61-12 at least potentially signified retirement of the 1.2 megaton surface burst B83 strategic bomb, but now production of the B61-13 will probably be relatively quick at the tail end of already scheduled B61-12 production.
Strategic Posture Review: Commissioned by Congress,
“The Commission recommends that a strategy to address the two-nuclear-peer threat [Russia and China] environment be a prerequisite for developing U.S. nuclear arms control limits for the 2027-2035 timeframe. The Commission recommends that once a strategy and its related force requirements are established, the U.S. government determine whether and how nuclear arms control limits continue to enhance U.S. security…” Continue reading
An anti-nuclear watchdog group contends the pits’ main purpose is to be fitted into the new warheads — not to upgrade existing weapons — and expanding the arsenal requires more pits than the lab can make.
“The commission ill-advisedly wants a replacement for LANL’s plutonium pit production facility to help fuel the new nuclear arms race with new-design nuclear weapons,” Jay Coghlan, executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, wrote in an email. “This is so tragic and unnecessary when no future pit production is scheduled to maintain the safety and reliability of the existing, extensively tested stockpile.”
A congressional commission foresees eventually replacing Los Alamos National Laboratory’s plutonium facility — despite the billions of dollars being spent to refurbish it — as part of its recommended strategy to bolster the U.S. nuclear arsenal to keep pace with Russia and China.
The Congressional Strategic Posture Commission has released a 160-page report that pushes for the U.S. to boost its nuclear capabilities and conventional military to deter what it describes as increasingly aggressive and well-equipped adversaries, namely Russia and China.
One section calls for improving and expanding infrastructure to research, develop and make better weaponry at a higher volume — and buried in a footnote is a statement of how the upgrades would include replacing the lab’s plutonium facility, known as PF-4, for production and science.
No timeline is given for when PF-4 might be phased out, but the document confirms anti-nuclear critics’ longtime contention the federal government is spending billions of dollars on a facility with a finite life.
At the moment, this is the only facility in the country that can produce the bowling-ball-sized plutonium cores, or “pits,” to detonate warheads. Nuclear security officials want the lab to make 30 pits a year by 2030, saying they’re needed to modernize the arsenal and equip two new warheads being developed.
Santa Fe, NM – In an important win for genuine cleanup at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has rejected the Lab’s plans for so-called cleanup through “cap and cover.” LANL’s plan would leave existing radioactive and toxic wastes uncharacterized and forever buried in unlined pits and trenches as a permanent threat to groundwater. At issue is remediation of the Lab’s “Material Disposal Area C” waste dump that has 7 pits and 108 shafts of radioactive and toxic wastes. Area C is located in the heart of nuclear weapons production at LANL, contiguous to the Lab’s main plutonium facility which is expanding production of plutonium “pit” bomb cores.
In a September 7, 2023 “Public Notice of Statement of Basis,” the Environment Department ruled:
“For maximum protection of human health and the environment and to ensure that the drinking water resource can be conservatively protected, NMED has determined that the selected [cleanup] remedy for MDA C must consist of waste excavation, characterization, and appropriate disposal of the buried waste… Excavation will ensure that the source of contamination at MDA C is removed…”
“The agency spending more on pit production than originally envisioned isn’t technically a cost overrun because no funding baseline was ever established…This means there’s no benchmark anyone can point to and say the agency has spent too much, she said, which in turn leaves funding for pits open-ended.”
Federal officials estimate Los Alamos National Laboratory won’t produce 30 nuclear bomb cores until 2030 — four years after the legally required deadline.
A plutonium pellet, “illuminated by its own energy,” according to the Department of Energy. DOE
The additional time needed to produce 30 bowling-ball-sized warhead triggers, known as pits, will cost the lab significantly more than originally estimated, a government watchdog said in a newly released report.
The agency in charge of the country’s nuclear arsenal estimates in the Government Accountability Office report it will take until 2030 for the Los Alamos lab’s plutonium facility to be capable of making 30 pits.
National Nuclear Security Administration: Assessments of Major Projects
GAO-23-104402Published: Aug 17, 2023. Publicly Released: Aug 17, 2023.
The National Nuclear Security Administration plans to invest over $30 billion in its major projects to modernize the research and production infrastructure supporting the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. This is our first biennial assessment of NNSA’s major projects.
As of March 2023, NNSA’s major projects collectively exceeded their cost estimates by over $2 billion. They also surpassed their collective schedules by almost 10 years. Cost growth and schedule delays had multiple causes, such as lower levels of worker productivity than planned.
The Department of Energy has been on the Government Accountability Office’s “High Risk List” for project mismanagement since 1991. A January 2023 GAO report says it all: NNSA Does Not Have a Comprehensive Schedule or Cost Estimate for Pit Production Capability. Congress has made its ongoing concern over the lack of pit aging studies explicit in legislation. The FY 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act enacted the following provision:
“Pit and Plutonium Aging.-There is concern with the apparent lack of focus on advancing knowledge regarding pit and plutonium aging since the JASONs conducted its first study in 2006. Given the future needs of the nation’s nuclear deterrent, a robust program of research and experimentation is needed. Therefore, NNSA is directed to develop a comprehensive, integrated ten-year research program for pit and plutonium aging that represents a consensus program among the national laboratories and federal sponsors. Such a plan shall include estimated cost of ongoing research, new or upgraded capability needs, and key near-, mid-, and long-range milestones. The plan shall be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act.”
As far as is publicly known no such plan has been submitted to Congress despite its statutory requirement. That said, a ten year plan to have plutonium pit aging studies is not sufficient to begin with when uncertainty over pit aging is being used as the rationale for an aggressive plutonium pit production program costing at least $60 billion over the next thirty years. The recent GAO report states, “…Six projects in the design phase are implementing significant changes that may increase their cost and schedule beyond NNSA’s preliminary estimates. These include a project to modify existing plutonium processing facilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.”
Furthermore, the entire U.S. $2 Trillion “Modernization” plan includes new intercontinental ballistic missiles, new cruise missiles, heavy stealth bombers and
submarines, which entails rebuilding warheads with new military capabilities plus completely new-design nuclear weapons. This is not just for “deterrence” but instead for nuclear warfighting capabilities. No production of plutonium pits is scheduled to maintain the safety and reliability of the existing nuclear stockpile; instead it is for new-design nuclear weapons. The US is inspiring a new arms race with nuclear weapons forever. Continue reading
NNSA: Plutonium Pit Production at Both Los Alamos and Savannah River Site
"To achieve DoD's 80 pits per year requirement by 2030, NNSA's recommended alternative repurposes the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina to produce plutonium pits while also maximizing pit production activities at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. This two-prong approach with at least 50 pits per year produced at Savannah River and at least 30 pits per year at Los Alamos is the best way to manage the cost, schedule, and risk of such a vital undertaking."
-Joint Statement from Ellen M. Lord and Lisa E. Gordon-Hagerty on Recapitalization of Plutonium Pit Production, May 10, 2018 (See full NNSA statement) NB: Lisa Gordon-Hagerty is the Administrator of the NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration); Ellen Lord is a DOD Under-secretary and Chair of the Nuclear Weapons Council (Gordon-Hagerty is also an NWC member).
For immediate release, May 10, 2018: What's Not in NNSA's Plutonium Pit Production Decision NukeWatch Press release excerpts:
- There is no explanation why the Department of Defense requires at least 80 pits per year, and no justification to the American taxpayer why the enormous expense of expanded production is necessary.
- NNSA did not mention that up to 15,000 "excess" pits are already stored at the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, TX, with up to another 5,000 in "strategic reserve." The agency did not explain why new production is needed given that immense inventory of already existing plutonium pits. (In 2006 independent experts found that pits last a least a century. Plutonium pits in the existing stockpile now average around 40 years old.)
- NNSA did not explain how to dispose of all of that plutonium, given that the MOX program is an abysmal failure. Nor is it made clear where future plutonium wastes from expanded pit production will go since operations at the troubled Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are already constrained from a ruptured radioactive waste barrel, and its capacity is already overcommitted to existing radioactive wastes.
- NNSA did not make clear that expanded plutonium pit production is for a series of speculative future "Interoperable Warheads", meant for new ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles... Altogether the three planned "Interoperable Warheads" will cost at least $40 billion, despite the fact that the Navy doesn't want or support them.
- The independent Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has expressed strong concerns about the safety of plutonium operations at both the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Savannah River Site, particularly regarding potential nuclear criticality incidents. (there's more: read the full press release)
Jay Coghlan, Nuclear Watch Director, commented, "NNSA has already tried four times to expand plutonium pit production, only to be defeated by citizen opposition and its own cost overruns and incompetence. But we realize that this fifth attempt is the most serious. However, we remain confident it too will fall apart, because of its enormous financial and environmental costs and the fact that expanded plutonium pit production is simply not needed for the existing nuclear weapons stockpile. We think the American public will reject new-design nuclear weapons, which is what this expanded pit production decision is really all about." (View/download press release)
Background:
- Dossier: Plutonium Pit Production at LANL
- Fact Sheet: Plutonium Pit Production
- History: Successful Citizen Activism Against Expanded U.S. Plutonium Pit Production
Press coverage, NNSA announcement:
- Public Integrity: Los Alamos would lose some future bomb production under new
Trump administration plan
- Los Alamos Monitor: NNSA announces decision on pit production
- SF New Mexican: Feds: Los Alamos lab to share plutonium work with South Carolina site
- Albuquerque Journal: Feds split 'pit' work between LANL and S.C.
- Public News Service: Los Alamos to Build Part of Next-Gen Nuclear Weapons
- Albuquerque Journal: New 'Pit' Plan May Mean More Waste at WIPP
34 metric tons of plutonium that were to be processed at the Savannah River Site may be headed to WIPP in New Mexico, after it has been diluted and mixed with inert material. NM Senator Udall: "I have serious questions about whether there is enough room at WIPP to store additional waste from Savannah River, given the clear legal limits in the Act, which were negotiated following a lawsuit New Mexico won against DOE when I served as Attorney General... If DOE is asking New Mexico to take on additional waste missions beyond what is authorized by current law, unilateral action (by DOE) is absolutely not an option." (ref)
Three of several cost overrun charts from the POGO report: the UPF, CMRR, and MOX facilities. Click to enlarge.
May 7, 2018: POGO Report: NNSA Needs Budgetary Oversight and Accountability Highlights:
- "Five recent projects by NNSA show that costs are significantly increasing- sometimes by nearly 8 times more than the initial estimates. These five programs have a combined total of $28 billion in cost overruns over the last 20 years."
- "Unsurprisingly NNSA contract management has been on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) list of high-risk program areas for issues stemming from mismanagement since 1990, when the list was created."
- Despite its long and well-documented record of budget-busting projects (One mistake at the UPF cost taxpayers $540 million), the NNSA is not subject to the same kind of cost reporting requirements as the Department of Defense.
- "Part of the reason Congress hasn't applied similar standards to the NNSA could be that the agency and its contractors have successfully captured Congressional attention, and appropriations. In 2016, a Project On Government Oversight (POGO) investigation into Congressional fellowships found that the nuclear laboratories, and the contractors running them, had been placing Fellows in key Committees and offices for decades. It's the kind of access most industry professionals can only dream about."
- "NNSA's project management problems will only be compounded by an aggressive plan to upgrade existing nuclear warheads and infrastructure and to develop new nuclear weapons." (read more at POGO)
Our related files: CMRR dossier; MOX dossier;Lawsuit v. UPF
April 26, 2018: LANL Rad Lab: Formal Comments Under Nat'l Environmental Policy Act Against raising plutonium limit at LANL Rad Lab
See NukeWatch's critique of these plans - our official 'public comments' as submitted: (PDF)
** Addendum to Watch comments as submitted April 27: (PDF)
Excerpt:
"This Draft Rad Lab EA is deficient. There are major omissions, for example the lack of analyses of potential beryllium hazards and Intentional Destructive Acts. Moreover, safety, occupational and seismic risks are explained away in "preliminary analyses." All this should be corrected in a more complete environmental impact statement, including final and transparent analyses of safety and seismic risks...
"NNSA should proceed with a broader environmental impact statement after its May 11 decision on the future of expanded plutonium pit production."
- NNSA is planning a 10-fold increase in plutonium at the LANL Rad Lab with a view to ramping up the production of plutonium pits for new nuclear weapons.
- NNSA wants to re-categorize the Rad Lab from a "radiological facility" to a "Hazard Category-3" nuclear facility. - (See details in our press release)
- Info: National Environmental Policy Act
- Note: NNSA is expected to announce its decision on May 11 regarding where plutonium pits will be produced: at Los Alamos, or at Savannah River Site... or both.
- See Patrick Malone's in-depth article for the Center for Public Integrity (May 2): Safety concerns plague key sites proposed for nuclear bomb production
- May 4, 2018: Jay Coghlan Op-Ed, Albuquerque Journal: Assessment of LANL Rad Lab premature, incomplete
For Immediate Release, February 22, 2018: NNSA Releases Draft Environmental Assessment for LANL Rad Lab;
Raises Plutonium Limit 10 Times for Expanded Pit Production
Santa Fe, NM. Today the National Nuclear Security Administration announced an Environmental Assessment to increase the amount of plutonium used in the Radiological Laboratory Utility and Office Building (aka the "Rad Lab") at the Los Alamos National Laboratory from 38.6 grams of plutonium-239 equivalent to 400 grams. This 10-fold increase is significant because it will dramatically expand materials characterization and analytical chemistry capabilities in the Rad Lab in support of expanded plutonium pit production for future nuclear weapons designs. It also re-categorizes the Rad Lab from a "radiological facility" to a "Hazard Category-3" nuclear facility. (See all the details in the full press release)
- Albuquerque Journal, February 22: NNSA wants more plutonium in Los Alamos facility
- Al Jazeera, February 23: US takes steps to resume plutonium pit production for nukes
For immediate release, October 27, 2017: Santa Fe City Council: LANL Cleanup Order Must Be Strengthened & Expanded
and Plutonium Pit Production Suspended Until Safety Issues Are Resolved
Santa Fe, NM. On the evening of Wednesday October 25, the Santa Fe City Council passed a resolution requesting that the New Mexico Environment Department strengthen the revised Los Alamos National Labs cleanup order to call for additional characterization of legacy nuclear wastes, increased cleanup funding, and significant additional safety training. The resolution also called for the suspension of any planned expanded plutonium pit production until safety issues are resolved. (view/download full press release)(view/download City Council resolution)
More Doubts on Los Alamos as a Safe Venue for Plutonium Pit Production "The ability of the Los Alamos Lab to safely carry out expanded plutonium pit production is increasingly in doubt."
- Jay Coghlan, NukeWatch
"State inspectors and Los Alamos National Laboratory officials may have known about an unlabeled hazardous waste container two days before the material ignited at the lab's plutonium facility during a cleanup operation, causing a worker to suffer second-degree burns... The violations are among a continuing stream of issues that have called into question the lab's ability to operate safely... The problems also have called into question the lab's ability to handle increasing quantities of plutonium to build the softball-sized atomic cores of nuclear weapons as part of a growing demand to modernize the nation's nuclear arsenal." (read more: Santa Fe New Mexican, August 4, 2017)
For immediate release: June 19, 2017: Some Background on Plutonium Pit Production at the Los Alamos Lab
Santa Fe, NM. "Why expand plutonium pit production when apparently it can't be done safely and may decrease, not increase, our national security? One strong reason is the huge contractor profits to be had under the one trillion dollar-plus 'modernization' of the nuclear weapons stockpile and production complex initiated under Obama, which Trump promises to expand. Far from just 'modernization', existing nuclear weapons are being given new military capabilities despite denials at the highest levels of government..."
- View/download the full press release
- NukeWatch Fact Sheet: Plutonium Pit Production
- Jay Coghlan, ABQJournal: Why new nuclear 'pit' production at LANL is unnecessary
"Ironically, new-design pits for the Interoperable Warhead may hurt national security..."
Defense Nuclear Safety Board review
Understanding the Safety Posture of the Plutonium Facility at Los Alamos National Lab.
See archived video of public hearing June 7, 2017
See comments submitted by NukeWatch here.
Is Los Alamos safe for pit production? Nuclear Negligence: Center For Public Integrity's 6-Part Report
Successful Citizen Activism Against Expanded U.S. Plutonium Pit Production
This is the unsung story of successful citizen activism against repeated government attempts to expand the production of plutonium pit cores, which has always been the choke point of resumed U.S. nuclear weapons production. This history is a critical part of the march toward a future world free of nuclear weapons. (View/download full report- PDF)
July 14, 2016: Debate Is On Over Making More Nuclear Triggers At Los Alamos Lab
"The National Nuclear Security Administration is under orders from Congress to produce as many as 80 new nuclear weapons triggers a year by around 2030, and Los Alamos National Laboratory is the only place in the country that is equipped to make them now... The plans for a higher-capacity plutonium pit production facility make Los Alamos key - some call the lab 'ground zero'..." (ref: Albuquerque Journal)
Updated March 2017: NukeWatch Fact Sheet: "Plutonium Pit Production at LANL" (View/download PDF)
2012 and before: Ups and Downs of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility
CMRR Public Meeting Update
The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMMR) Project is the Lab's $6 billion dream facility that would enable expanded production capabilities for plutonium nuclear weapons components. The Obama Administration has recently proposed deferring the project for 5 years, which will likely lead to its termination.
April 25th was the 13th semi-annual public meeting required as part of a 2005 settlement between DOE/LANL and an network of community groups.
- View Scott Kovac's presentation to the meeting: download PDF
- See the Los Alamos Monitor coverage of the event
- Proceedings of the April 25, 2012 CMRR Public Meeting (PDF)
- 2005 Settlement Agreement requiring the CMRR public meetings (PDF)
Funding Eliminated for Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons Plutonium Lab
Press Release: The NNSA FY 2013 Congressional Budget Request
Feb 13. Santa Fe, NM - "The Obama Administrations new fiscal year 2013 Congressional Budget Request has zeroed out funding for the controversial Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project (CMRR)-Nuclear Facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). While todays budget says that the CMRR-NF is being simply deferred for 5 years, that likely terminates the project given ongoing fiscal constraints and its lack of clear need.
For the past five years Nuclear Watch New Mexico has argued that the existing plutonium infrastructure at LANL was more than sufficient to meet the needs of our nuclear weapons stockpile, which official studies should confirm. NNSA now appears to be agreeing with us. While zeroing out CMRR the agency states in its budget request:
Construction has not begun on the nuclear facility. NNSA has determined, in consultation with the national laboratories, that the existing infrastructure in the nuclear complex has the inherent capacity to provide adequate support for these missions. Studies are ongoing to determine long-term requirements. NNSA will modify existing facilities, and relocate some nuclear materials..."
View/download the full Nuclear Watch press release (PDF) on the budgetary request here.
View/download NukeWatch's detailed tabulation of the NNSA's FY 2013 Budget Request here.
View/download FY2013 Los Alamos Labs Spending Chart here
"We predict that FY 2013 will be a rough year for the National Nuclear Security Administration. This will be due to (among other things) its failure to achieve ignition at the ~$5 billion National Ignition Facility, the effective termination of the CMRR-Nuclear Facility (even after more than $400 million has been spent on its design), and growing Congressional doubts over its MOX Program. Added to this, the Department of Energy (NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within DOE) will likely fail with its ~$13 billion Waste Treatment Plant at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State. DOE will remain on the GAO's high risk list for the 20th consecutive year. Public and Congressional exasperation with DOE and NNSA wasteful spending will grow, leading to increasing budget cuts in FY 2014."
Read the full list of budgetary predictions at the Watchblog.
The NNSA FY 2013 Congressional Budget Request is expected to be released early afternoon (EST) Monday, February 13.
New Defense Guidance Undermines Need for new LANL Plutonium Facility
Pentagon President Barak Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta released a new defense strategy reflecting the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the need to achieve more than $450 billion in budget savings over the next decade. While specific military programs were not marked for cuts, the strategy document "U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense" notes that "It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy."
Jay Coghlan, NukeWatch Director, commented, "We welcome the Administration's acknowledgment that massive budget savings much be achieved and that our nuclear forces could be further reduced. Canceling the CMRR-Nuclear Facility is one way to begin to achieve both, immediately saving around 5 billion dollars. More importantly, canceling the CMRR-Facility is also a decision to not expand plutonium pit production, when expansion is simply not needed and would be inconsistent with America's global nonproliferation goals. Hundred's of billions of dollars could be saved over the next half-century by not expanding plutonium pit production to produce new nuclear weapons, when that money is badly needed for true national priorities."
U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense is available here.
Our Press Release is here.
Safety Board Gives Green Light For Unneeded New Plutonium Facility at LANL
On August 26th, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), an independent safety Board chartered by Congress to monitor nuclear safety at Department of Energy defense facilities, signed off on ongoing seismic and safety issues concerning Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL's) proposed new $2 billion-plus plutonium facility. This allows around $50 million in funding to be released for its further design. The 2009 National Defense Authorization Act required the DNFSB and DOE to submit certification to the congressional Armed Services Committees that safety and seismic concerns raised by the Board were resolved before these funds were made available. The Board had identified five certification findings ranging from structural and equipment seismic concerns to safety-related document and controls issues.
The construction of a proposed new "Nuclear Facility" for LANL's "Chemical and Metallurgical Research Replacement Project" (CMRR) is not yet funded, but its design to date has cost over $200 million. This facility, whose originally stated purpose was to directly support expanded nuclear weapons production, should not be built because it is oversized, over budget, over sold, and plain not needed. Instead of a new nuclear weapons facility, major investments at LANL should be directed toward nonproliferation programs, global nuclear threat reduction, energy efficiency, environmental research, and cleanup.
New Defense Guidance Undermines Need for new LANL Plutonium Facility
Pentagon President Barak Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta released a new defense strategy reflecting the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the need to achieve more than $450 billion in budget savings over the next decade. While specific military programs were not marked for cuts, the strategy document "U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense" notes that "It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy."
Jay Coghlan, NukeWatch Director, commented, "We welcome the Administration's acknowledgment that massive budget savings much be achieved and that our nuclear forces could be further reduced. Canceling the CMRR-Nuclear Facility is one way to begin to achieve both, immediately saving around 5 billion dollars. More importantly, canceling the CMRR-Facility is also a decision to not expand plutonium pit production, when expansion is simply not needed and would be inconsistent with America's global nonproliferation goals. Hundred's of billions of dollars could be saved over the next half-century by not expanding plutonium pit production to produce new nuclear weapons, when that money is badly needed for true national priorities."
U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense is available here.
Our Press Release is here.
NNSA issues Record Of Indecision for Nuclear Facility
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has posted its Amended Record Of Decision (AROD) for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project (CMRR)-Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory. What all this means is that the Department of Energy has rubber stamped the final step in the SEIS process.
The NNSA offered no real alternatives to building the Nuclear Facility, and continues to push a modification of the 2004 design, mostly to meet increasing (and still unresolved) seismic concerns. The AROD still leaves undecided whether to use a 'Deep Excavation' or 'Shallow Excavation' option for construction of the Nuclear Facility, which was the only substantial choice NNSA offered.
As the AROD states, 'NNSA will select the appropriate Excavation Option (Shallow or Deep) for implementing the construction of this building after initiating final design activities, when additional geotechnical and structural design calculations and more detailed engineering analysis will be performed to support completing the facility design'.
It's more like a Record Of Indecision because nothing new was decided. True alternatives were not analyzed in the SEIS. The pre-determined outcome to build the Nuclear Facility was predictably chosen and the hard choice between the options of shallow or deep construction was kicked down the road. This indecision is a blatant attempt to snowball the project and start pre-construction activities that alone could cost up to three-quarters of a billion dollars. This is despite the fact that the actual elevation, type of structure, and total estimated costs are still unknown. Hopefully Congress will quit writing a blank check and demand more details before starting to spend any more money on this 6 billion dollar bamboozle that won’t produce a single new permanent job. For further background please see our CMRR fact sheet here. And see our LANL Primer here. The CMRR Amended Record Of Decision is here.
Thanks To Those Who Attended the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project (CMRR)
12th CMRR Project Update Public Meeting, Tuesday, September 20, 2011: Our presentation from that evening is here (September 20, 2011, 5.2 MB) See our new fact sheet
NNSA Hides Behind Final Enviro Statement To Press On With Unneeded And Exorbitant Plutonium Facility
Without public notice this late Friday afternoon the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has posted online its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project (CMRR)-Nuclear Facility. While providing materials characterization and analytical chemistry for "special nuclear materials" the Nuclear Facility will be the keystone to an expanded plutonium pit production complex at Los Alamos, quadrupling the Lab's manufacturing capability from 20 radioactive nuclear weapons cores per year to 80. The Nuclear Facility is also slated to have a vault that can hold up to six metric tons of plutonium that it will share via underground tunnels with the Lab's plutonium pit production plant. Read Our Press Release here. Find the Final SEIS in Volumes on the DOE Site here.
Download Our Handy Combined SEIS here. (August 26, 2011, 25MB)
NukeWatch Comments on Draft CMRR-NF Environmental Impact Statement
Nuclear Watch New Mexico Comments on the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Facility Portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico.
We appreciate public involvement in the NEPA process. We also support safe, monitored storage of radioactive wastes as a matter of national security and environmental protection. However, these should not be interpreted as support for more nuclear weapons, pit production, nuclear power, or the generation of more nuclear wastes. In our view, the best way to deal with the environmental impacts of nuclear waste is to not produce it to begin with.
We look forward to the agency's withdrawal of this draft for the reasons stated in the linked document, and look forward to further comment once NNSA puts out a serious draft without an un-predetermined outcome. summary of comments / full comments
Environmental Impact of Nuclear Facility
A System Out of Control- The Department of Energy and Los Alamos National Lab are gaming the National Environmental Policy Act process for a proposed new Nuclear Facility. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is premature, the narrow range of alternatives considered is bogus, the final designs are not mature and seismic issues are still outstanding. The NEPA process is being subverted.
It would be unsafe for northern New Mexico if LANL were to proceed with this building.
Public Hearings on the Environmental Impact of LANL's Proposed Expansion of its Plutonium Production Complex
The Public Comment period for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Project can be used as an opportunity to challenge the need for the facility as well as voice concerns about the narrow range of alternatives the Department of Energy is evaluating in it's plans. Additionally, comments are a way to express specific environmental issues about the consequences of building and operating this addition to the plutonium complex at LANL, as well as to point out deficiencies in the analysis of environmental impacts. Going on record in written or oral comments during this process sets up the condition for future actions.
Brief Background
The main purpose of the CMRR Project is to create an expanded plutonium pit production complex at LANL capable of quadrupling the current production level of ~20 pits per year to 80. In the recent past, proposed expanded plutonium pit production was all about producing newdesign nuclear weapons, the so-called Reliable Replacement Warheads (RRWs). Congress decisively rejected RRWs, and we assert that no RRWs equals no need for the CMRR-Nuclear Facility. However, the U.S. nuclear weapons labs are still pushing for new "replacement" components, including plutonium pits that could be heavily modified from originally tested designs. This too should be avoided because it would inherently undermine confidence in the extensively tested reliable stockpile. It therefore follows that the CMRR-Nuclear Facility is still not needed. Backgrounder on Early Construction of the Nuclear Facility More Background information on Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Project The Supplemental EIS and its Reference Documents are available here.
30 Non-Governmental Organizations Oppose Short Schedule and Inadequate Number of Public Hearings for Controversial Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos
Following the release this week of the Department of Energy's (DOE) draft Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project-Nuclear Facility Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement thirty non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from New Mexico and around the country wrote to DOE calling for three additional public hearings, and an extension of 75 days for the comment period past the proposed June 13 Deadline. New Mexico Senators and Representatives have been approached for assistance with the requests. Press Release -May 5, 2011 Letter to DOE -May 5, 2011
CMRR SEIS Hearing Schedule
Monday May 23 – 5 to 9 pm ABQ at the Albuquerque Marriott, Louisiana and I-40
Tuesday, May 24 – 5 to 9 pm Los Alamos at the Holiday Inn Express, 60 Entrada Drive.
Wednesday, May 25 – 5 to 9 pm Espanola at the Santa Claran Hotel
Thursday, May 26 – 5 to 9 pm Santa Fe Community College, Jemez Rooms
Please come to at least one hearing and give oral comments!
New Mexicans Must Again Say No to DOE's Proposals for Commercial Radioactive Waste Disposal.
The Department Of Energy has plans to ship more radioactive waste to New Mexico. But three sites under consideration are in New Mexico of the seven sites in new plans for disposal of nuclear power plant waste and disused radioactive sealed sources that are used in medical treatments and other applications. This includes the possibility of adding it to the inventory of waste headed for WIPP outside Carlsbad. A second site near WIPP is also on the list of possible locations, as well as Los Alamos National Laboratory. We can stop wasting NM! See our general fact sheet
See our LANL and NM specific Fact Sheet
Los Alamos Lab to Release Plans for Plutonium Bomb Plant on Good Friday and Earth Day
Friday, April 22, is both Earth Day and Good Friday. During this extended Easter weekend some 10,000 pilgrims walk many miles to the famous Catholic Santuario in Chimayo as both penance and in celebration of the Peacemaker's resurrection. Twenty-five miles to the west and a 1,000 feet higher sits the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). An official has stated that on Good Friday and Earth Day the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) will release an environmental impact statement for a huge new plutonium facility at LANL. This facility will be the keystone of an expanded production complex for plutonium pit "triggers" for nuclear weapons.
This Friday is not a good Friday for either the earth or world peace. During this holy week it is fitting to remember that "blessed are the peacemakers" and work to end nuclear weapons production and contamination rather than increasing them.
NWNM CMRR SEIS Scoping Comments (full version) -November 16, 2010
To assist in preparing your written comments NukeWatch has provided shortened language in this letter (doc). Information about where to submit your comments is at the head of this letter.
NNSA Extends Public Scoping Period for CMRR Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
In response to requests from interested parties the National Nuclear Security Administration has extended the public scoping period for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) Supplemental Environmental Impact Study through November 16, 2010.
Additionally, Energy Secretary Chu has called for an independent review of the requirements for both the CMRR-NF at Los Alamos and the Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12 in Oak Ridge, TN. This process will begin November 22 and is intended to inform the Department of Energy on accurate cost estimates for these projects in time for fiscal year 2012 Budget Request. We suggest that the budgetary belt-tightening felt by many federal programs could be applied here as well. More at the NNSA site for the SEIS
Environmental Impacts of Proposed Plutonium "Nuclear Facility" at Los Alamos to be Reconsidered - No-Build Alternative is Back on the Table
Santa Fe, NM- On October 1, 2010 the Energy Department's semi-autonomous nuclear weapons agency, the NNSA, will issue a formal Notice of Intent that it will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement for its expanded plutonium pit production complex at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). At issue now is a massive "Nuclear Facility" that in combination with LANL's existing plutonium facility will quadruple production capability from the currently approved level of 20 pits per year to 80. The first legally-required environmental review of the CMRR Project was completed in 2003. Since then the project has grown 50% larger while estimated costs have increased seven-fold from $660 million in 2004 to $4.5 billion and still climbing today. Because of that, on May 4 Nuclear Watch asked NNSA to begin the process of preparing a supplemental EIS. On June 4 NNSA agreed in writing to Nuclear Watch that it would review the 2003 CMRR EIS for current relevance. NNSA has now correctly concluded that a very substantial supplement is needed, a positive decision that we believe is the only legal choice possible.
In its Notice of Intent the NNSA lists three alternatives for the Nuclear Facility: 1. To proceed with construction as currently planned; 2. To not build it and use the old Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Building without upgrading it; and 3. Not build the Nuclear Facility but upgrade the old CMR Building to sustain operations for 20-30 years. Nuclear Watch advocates a fourth alternative – stop operations at the dangerous CMR Building and do not build the Nuclear Facility. Notice of Intent in Federal Register
NPR Calls for Surge Weapons Production Capacity, Funding for CMRR and Full Range Life Extensions
April 6, 2010- The first unclassified Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), released today, sets the direction of U.S. nuclear weapons policy and plans for maintaining the stockpile. Of importance to northern New Mexico is the intention to fund the $4.5 billion Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Project at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Apparently bowing to pressure from the weapons laboratories and holdovers from the previous administration, the NPR states that the CMRR is needed to sustain the nuclear arsenal. But it also goes past that and calls for "some modest capacity [that] will be put in place for surge production in the event of significant geopolitical "surprise." Once that capacity is installed we believe the door remains open for expanded plutonium pit production at LANL.
The NPR also falls short of the conservative approach to maintaining the existing arsenal with minimum modifications to original tested design specifications. NukeWatch advocates "curatorship" of the nuclear stockpile, which involves robust surveillance and maintenance of the stockpile but avoids new-design components and obviates expanded production capacity or new facilities to make them. The NPR calls for a full range of Life Extension Programs, including refurbishment of existing warheads, reuse of nuclear components from different warheads, and replacement of nuclear components. NukeWatch is deeply concerned that these Life Extension Programs will be used to endow existing nuclear weapons with new military capabilities, as has been done in the past, despite claims made to the contrary in the NPR. Nuclear Watch Press Release -April 6 2010
Safety Board Gives Green Light For Unneeded New Plutonium Facility at LANL
On August 26th, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), an independent safety Board chartered by Congress to monitor nuclear safety at Department of Energy defense facilities, signed off on ongoing seismic and safety issues concerning Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL's) proposed new $2 billion-plus plutonium facility. This allows around $50 million in funding to be released for its further design. The 2009 National Defense Authorization Act required the DNFSB and DOE to submit certification to the congressional Armed Services Committees that safety and seismic concerns raised by the Board were resolved before these funds were made available. The Board had identified five certification findings ranging from structural and equipment seismic concerns to safety-related document and controls issues. The construction of a proposed new "Nuclear Facility" for LANL's "Chemical and Metallurgical Research Replacement Project" (CMRR) is not yet funded, but its design to date has cost over $200 million. This facility, whose originally stated purpose was to directly support expanded nuclear weapons production, should not be built because it is oversized, over budget, over sold, and plain not needed. Instead of a new nuclear weapons facility, major investments at LANL should be directed toward nonproliferation programs, global nuclear threat reduction, energy efficiency, environmental research, and cleanup.
