archive-org.com » ORG » L » LASG.ORG

Total: 881

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Bulletin187 excerpt: MOX dying?, 12 Mar 2014
    MOX program die and it certainly should for any number of reasons as we have been saying since the program was a twinkle in the eye of former Rep Spratt something else will need to be done with 43 3 metric tons MT of plutonium currently declared surplus as well as the future declarations which need to follow This 43 3 MT is mostly stored at the Pantex plant near Amarillo and at SRS See Table 3 p 14 in The United States Plutonium Balance 1944 2009 Jun 26 2012 As some of our colleagues finally said in 2012 it s time to bury plutonium Nuclear proliferation Time to bury plutonium Nature 485 pp 167 168 There is no rush to bury it provided it remains safely guarded The marginal cost of protecting this particular plutonium over and above the cost of protecting non surplus plutonium weapons and high level waste at these sites is in general very low Sooner or later it must be disposed however and burial with various degrees of preprocessing is now the prime path Multiple disposal alternatives are theoretically possible Russian agreement is necessary Some of these alternatives would take this additional plutonium to WIPP WIPP as many of you know is authorized to dispose of transuranic waste from the U S nuclear weapons program which this would be Besides WIPP another disposal scenario under active consideration would use deep boreholes a technology that has matured greatly in the past two decades WIPP suffered two significant accidents in February shutting down disposal operations for an indeterminate time Seventeen workers have been contaminated Subterranean cleanup of salt tunnels could be slow and it is clear that new equipment and procedures are needed But we do not think these travails are in any way fatal to WIPP s important mission We at the Study Group have always judged MOX to be an unsound disposition pathway and have lobbied for its termination Now all reasonable disposal paths should be investigated and vetted through open public processes and of course discussed with Russia Some of these options involve the WIPP site which looks to us like a very good place to put more plutonium waste with or without various means of immobilization Essentially twenty years and billions of dollars have been wasted on MOX for the usual reasons Arms control and nuclear security NGOs and their funders closely allied with the Clinton Administration played a central role in this waste and delay To their credit other NGOs argued strenuously and made compelling cases that this disposition pathway was grossly cost ineffective and had other major flaws It hasn t worked out and it won t Among the options we believe worthy of renewed consideration is the direct disposal of non immobilized plutonium including demilitarized pits at WIPP In the case of pits these could be shipped directly from Pantex where demilitarization could take place without opening the pits There are a couple of dozen ways physical chemical and mechanical

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/ActionAlerts/Bulletin187excerpt.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • LANS planning documents & briefings
    TYSP FY 2014 Jun 25 2013 Study Group comments on the 60 Day Study from Los Alamos National Security LANS LLC for warhead plutonium sustainment Aug 8 2012 LANL Plan B said to Cost 800M Albuquerque Journal North Aug 8 2012 Los Alamos National Laboratory Update for Regional Community Leaders Breakfast Terry C Wallace Jr Jul 24 2012 Los Alamos National Laboratory Twenty Five Year Site Plan FY 2013 FY

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/budget/LANS_planning_documents.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • CMRR-NF Litigation under NEPA
    Exhibit C 4 Exhibit D 5 Exhibit E 6 Exhibit F Doc 10 Nov 30 2011 CONSENT TO PROCEED Before a U S Magistrate Judge Under 28 U S C 636 c and Fed R Civ P 73 b Los Alamos Study Group voluntarily consents to have United States Magistrate Judge Robert Hayes Scott conduct dispositive proceedings in this matter including motions and trial and order the entry of final judgment Doc 9 TEXT ONLY ENTRY Nov 30 2011 ORDER DENYING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS UNOPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASE Doc 8 13KB Nov 28 2011 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASE Doc 7 17KB Nov 18 2011 Plaintiff s Response to Defendants Unopposed Motion to Transfer Related Case Doc 6 116KB Nov 17 2011 Exhibit A 18KB FEDERAL DEFENDANTS UNOPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASE Doc 5 42KB Nov 10 2011 NOTICE of Appearance by John Tustin on behalf of All Defendants Tustin John Entered 11 10 2011 Summons Issued as to United States Department of Energy Steven Chu The National Nuclear Security Administration Thomas Paul D Agostino Oct 24 2011 Office code correction Case office code has been changed from 6 Santa Fe to 1 Albuquerque Oct 24 2011 Filing fee 350 00 receipt SF001613 re 1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 against All Defendants filed by Los Alamos Study Group Attachments 1 Civil Cover Sheet Hnasko Thomas TEXT ONLY ENTRY NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED Oct 21 2011 This case has been randomly assigned to U S Magistrate Judge Robert Hayes Scott to conduct dispositive proceedings in this matter including motions and trial Appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge will be to the U S Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit It is the responsibility of the case filer to serve a copy of this Notice upon all parties with the summons and complaint Consent is strictly voluntary and a party is free to withhold consent without adverse consequences Should a party choose to consent notice should be made no later than 21 days after entry of the Order setting the Rule 16 Initial Scheduling Conference TEXT ONLY ENTRY NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED Oct 21 2011 Magistrate Judge Robert Hayes Scott and Magistrate Judge W Daniel Schneider assigned Oct 21 2011 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 300KB Oct 21 2011 Case 11 2141 United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit LOS ALAMOS STUDY GROUP Plaintiff Appellant v UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY STEVEN CHU in his official capacity as Secretary Department of Energy NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION THOMAS PAUL D AGOSTINO in his official capacity as Administrator National Nuclear Security Administration Defendants Appellees OPINION OF THE COURT Chief Judge BRISCOE and Circuit Judges McKAY and HARTZ Aug 27 2012 Judgment PLAINTIFF APPELLANT S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF APPELLANT S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND TO REMAND PURSUANT TO TENTH CIRCUIT RULE 27 2 A 1 Mar 29 2012 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS APPELLEES RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD VACATE JUDGMENT BELOW AND REMAND PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE 27 2 A 1 Mar 19 2012 Calendar notice sent to counsel Arguments to be held on 05 09 2012 at 9 00 a m in Courtroom I Byron White United States Courthouse Denver CO ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Appellant s Motion to Supplement the Record to Vacate the Judgment Below and to Remand Pursuant to Tenth Circuit Rule 27 2 A 1 On or before March 19 2012 the Appellees are directed to file a response to appellant s motion 73KB Mar 7 2012 PLAINTIFF APPELLANT S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND TO REMAND PURSUANT TO TENTH CIRCUIT RULE 27 2 A 1 201KB Mar 6 2012 Attachment 48KB APPELLANT S REPLY BRIEF 183KB Jan 9 2012 Minute order filed Appellant s optional reply brief now due 01 09 2012 for Los Alamos Study Group Text Only No Attachment RESPONSE BRIEF OF FEDERAL DEFENDANTS APPELLEES ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED 186KB Dec 22 2011 Federal Defendants Appellees reply in support of their motion for summary disposition because of mootness is referred to the merits panel 14KB Dec 6 2011 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS APPELLEES REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION BECAUSE OF MOOTNESS 38KB Dec 5 2011 Judge s order referring Motion for Summary Disposition to panel of judges to consider the merits of this appeal 49KB Nov 29 2011 PLAINTIFF APPELLANT S RESPONSE TO FEDERAL DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION BECAUSE OF MOOTNESS 97KB Nov 23 2011 Order setting requirement of date when appellant shall file a response to the appellees motion 48KB Nov 2 2011 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS APPELLEES MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION BECAUSE OF MOOTNESS 51KB Nov 1 2011 exhibits 3 26MB Order granting extension 27KB Sep 16 2011 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS APPELLEES UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWERING BRIEF 22KB Sep 16 2011 Appellant s Opening Brief 285KB Aug 31 2011 Exhibits 1MB Appendix Index 429KB Vol 1 pgs 1 161 5 9MB Vol 1 pgs 162 281 4 5MB Vol 2 pgs 282 336 1 8MB Vol 2 pgs 337 457 3MB Vol 2 pgs 458 561 2 7MB Vol 3 pgs 562 720 12 9MB Vol 4 pgs 721 880 10 6MB Vol 4 pgs 881 1007 6 9MB Vol 4 pgs 1008 1180 8 6MB Vol 5 pgs 1181 1352 7 2MB Vol 5 pgs 1353 1531 7 6MB Vol 6 pgs 1532 1744 17 2MB Docketing Statement 54KB Jul 21 2011 Notice of Appeal 34KB Jul 1 2011 Case 1 10 cv 00760 JCH ACT Federal District Court of New Mexico LOS ALAMOS STUDY GROUP v UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY THE HONORABLE STEPHEN CHU in his capacity as SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION THE

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/CMRR/Litigation/CMRR-NF_litigation.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • NM Local Govt resolutions & letters requesting new EIS for CMRR-NF
    unanimously Nov 30 2010 Peñasco Area Communities Association pdf 173KB sent Nov 16 2010 Santa Fe City Council pdf 14KB passed unanimously Nov 10 2010 Jemez Pueblo Governor Joshua Madalena pdf 483KB sent Oct 4 2010 LASG Bulletin 104 contains talking points you can use in the local government context Letter sent to Santa Fe County Commissioners in favor of the joint resolution with the City of Santa Fe requesting

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/CMRR/Govt_resolutions_ltrs_CMRR-NF_EIS.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Resources on TA-55 Security System Cost Overrun
    Security Upgrades Project Phase II at Los Alamos National Laboratory DOE IG report Jan 2 2014 Los Alamos to Repay NNSA 10M for Botched Security Project Nuclear Weapons Materials Monitor Dec 7 2012 LANL Director Security Upgrade Project Facing 41M Cost Increase Nuclear Weapons Materials Monitor Nov 9 2012 LANL Security Fix Now At 41M Albuquerque Journal North Nov 9 2012 McMillan memo to LANL employees Nov 7 2012 NNSA

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/CMRR/NMSSUP.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • After CMRR-NF Delay, LANL Proposes going small to meet Pu needs, NWMM, 22 Feb 2013
    last estimate for the facility put the price tag in the range of 3 7 and 5 8 billion and other options were available to help the nation meet its plutonium needs In the short term Los Alamos has examined establishing an interim plutonium capability by using existing facilities both at Los Alamos and across the weapons complex including at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory That effort however has been stalled because Congress has thus far refused to approve a reprogramming request that would allow the lab to do more work on the interim capability McMillan Time to Build Massive Facilities Too Long Using smaller facilities for the long term would potentially allow the lab to meet the nation s plutonium needs without having to build a massive facility like CMRR NF which has been on the drawing board for several decades It may seem easier to envision a large signature facility that does all things nuclear That s kind of what we had for the analytical capability in CMRR McMillan said But the reality is that the time frames needed to build them have simply become too long To support this country s current path for the stockpile the labs and the plants need access to modern uranium and plutonium facilities sooner rather than later The new approach NW M Monitor has learned would take advantage of existing facilities like the first phase of the CMRR project the Radiological Laboratory Utility Office Building while building smaller facilities on the planned footprint of CMRR NF Such an approach would be modeled after the lab s Plutonium Facility which is essentially a warren of small interconnected laboratories Smaller specialized facilities together with repurposing existing space would be one approach because the cost to the taxpayer would be smaller and the design approvals

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/press/2013/NWMM_22Feb2013.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • U.S. Nuclear Lab Ready to Shelve Costly Facility Plan, NTI, 22 Feb 2013
    comments There may be a new building but it won t be that big expensive box I challenged the team at Los Alamos to explore alternatives that would provide the capabilities that CMRR represented but to do that in ways that would be simpler McMillan said in prepared remarks Based on the work that they ve done over the last year I believe we should look at designing and building small individual facilities to meet specific tasks for supporting the nuclear weapons stockpile The Los Alamos chief did not elaborate on timing or say how much his backup plan would cost The Albuquerque Journal reported last August though that the alternative concept might require 800 million over the next 10 years The Plan B project could include converting a recently constructed CMRR radiological laboratory and office building into a site capable of nuclear research at a cost of 186 million according to Greg Mello of the watchdog Los Alamos Study Group That would effectively double the radiation facility s original construction price tag The Los Alamos proposal also would include a 120 million tunnel to link the repurposed building to the PF 4 site where plutonium pits are produced the New Mexico based critic said in an August analysis In describing the substitute proposal in broad terms this week McMillan said no final determination had yet been made on how to proceed At some level it s not for me to say whether CMRR as a design will ever happen That s going to be a governmental decision he said in response to an audience question What we have been working to do is to provide the government with options to provide the capabilities that we have planned for CMRR at smaller facilities as well as reusing existing facilities McMillan

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/press/2013/GSN_22Feb2013.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Memo to Congress re: environmental testing of pits, 10 Oct 2012
    is primarily used for environmental testing of SNM One half of the building is the Radiation Measurement Facility including the Intrinsic Radiation INRAD Bay and the other half is the ETF consisting of the Engineering Test Bay ETB The two bays are separated from each other by a thick concrete wall The HETB is a unique facility within the Nuclear Weapons Complex NWC With regard to INRAD measurement testing it is currently the only building within the NWC that allows intrinsic radiation detection of SNM on configured assemblies outside of drums or containers and without significant background radiation present The INRAD facility supports measurement operations for Nonproliferation Homeland and International Security Division NHI the Accident Response Group ARG the Joint Technical Operations Team JTOT and radiation detector development work With regard to environmental testing Building 334 is currently the only building within the NWC that can facilitate environmental testing of SNM i e pits and secondary assemblies containing SNM Environmental testing includes vibration shock thermal conditioning or combinations of these environments Figure A 10 2 shows the location of Building 334 in Superblock at LLNL CTSPEIS p A 90 emphasis added We promised a colleague that we would look for a site at LANL that was suitable for this work We looked for a Hazard Cat II or even Cat III nuclear facility with good security that could do this work at LANL There isn t anything that looks remotely possible The DNFSB site representative knows of no such structure Some people far away might imagine that LANL is an easily secured site This is not the case due to its topography large distances between sites and quasi forested ground cover Realistically LANL could be described as having somewhat porous security except for key areas protected by PIDAS Regarding the building s safety and security requirements NNSA says The nature of the work presently being conducted in Building 334 and Building 834 Complex at LLNL is to test classified test objects made from SNM and to test actual weapons and weapons components and as such needs to be located in a secure PIDAS Perimeter Intrusion Detection and Assessment System area similar to what is found at the LLNL Superblock and at LLNL Site 300 Any other location for this work would need to be a Category II Nuclear Facility and have the facility infrastructure to support this hazard level of work CTSPEIS p 5 504 The PIDAS requirement is obviously hugely expensive NNSA s default plan since 2008 has been to move the functions of B334 from LLNL to Pantex This choice was analyzed under NEPA in the Complex Transformation Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement CTSPEIS This discussed in the CTSPEIS at pp 5 496 to 497 5 503 to 506 5 540 and A 90 to 92 A Record of Decision ROD was issued to implement this decision on December 19 2008 Fed Reg Vol 73 No 245 p 77662 This function is to be housed either in an

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/CMRR/LASG_memo_Congress_pits_10Oct2012.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive



  •