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".
  • U.S. Dsitrict court to hear CMRR case, Apr 13, 2011
    statement EIS regarding the proposed Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos and its many subprojects The complaint also seeks an injunction to prohibit all further investment in the Nuclear Facility including all detailed design construction and obligation of funds until an EIS is prepared Mello was in Santa Fe Tuesday night giving a presentation on the proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility I can t say too much about it Mello said of the upcoming hearing We are working on our presentation to the court The judge is giving a four hour slot for both sides so we are summarizing our case for two hours The bare bones of the case are very simple The NNSA is implementing a CMRR nuclear facility without an applicable environment impact statement It is a very simple idea and it is a very simple law In October DOE and NNSA lawyers filed a motion to dismiss They argued that the NNSA already had completed and extensive environmental review of the proposed CMRR The review culminated in a November 2003 EIS and on Feb 12 2004 there was a Record of Decision ROD that approved construction According to court documents Since the 2004 ROD new

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/press/2011/LAMonitor_13Apr2011.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Thanks to Fukushima Light Shed on U.S. Nuclear Facility Located on Volcano, Foreign Policy in Focus, Mar 22, 2011
    with seismic concerns as geological studies have uncovered an increasingly precarious underground structure Los Alamos of course is the national lab in New Mexico created for the Manhattan Project which developed the atomic bomb Still a work in progress after all these years the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement CMRR facility is being built to the tune of a cool 4 3 billion That s six times the cost adjusted for inflation of the division of the Manhattan Project that was based in Los Alamos The CMRR will be used to increase the capacity to produce plutonium pits which is where a nuclear weapon s chain reaction occurs If that doesn t sound like disarmament you re right Funding for the project by the Obama administration was intended in part to win Republican votes for the ratification of New START But in terms of pure disarmament it not only cancels out New START it ensures the health of the nuclear industrial complex for many years Snodgrass writes Everet Beckner formerly a high ranking official in the National Nuclear Security Administration during the Bush administration called Friday for a pause in the design work underway at the CMRR He said the earthquake event in Japan was outside the current window of expectations because it was larger than a thousand year event Maybe that isn t enough of a margin Turns out that at Los Alamos National Laboratory LANL nuclear safety issues have been complicated with seismic concerns as geological studies have uncovered an increasingly precarious underground structure in the late 1990s faults were found to run near and even beneath some LANL nuclear facilities A survey found a number of LANL buildings to be at considerable risk of earthquake induced collapse But this information was not immediately applied to building siting

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/press/2011/FPIF_22Mar2011.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Press release, Jan 26, 2011: Taos resolution, LASG litigation
    also filed an affidavit expressing her deep concerns about this project Los Alamos County expects to make and bank huge sums in gross receipts taxes from this project Former Sandia National Laboratories SNL Vice President Bob Puerifoy has filed an affidavit pdf pointing out that there is no need for the pit manufacturing that is the primary purpose for this facility as has Frank von Hippel pdf veteran of the Clinton White House and decades of nuclear national security studies Puerifoy supervised the design at SNL of most of the U S nuclear arsenal We have described a number of reasonable alternatives to the facility see New Realities call for New Thinking pdf and Mello Affidavit 3 pdf pp 34 38 We have not been able to find a single study or document by the National Nuclear Security Administration NNSA or its contractors regarding any alternatives to this facility whatsoever belying the objectivity of any so called Supplemental EIS SEIS process The present SEIS process cannot be objective or meet NEPA requirements Mello Affidavit 3 pdf pp 42 47 We are aware of that some of the most senior LANL scientists including a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a Fellow of the American Physical Society believe the CMRR project if completed would usher in deleterious institutional changes to LANL further damaging the quality of science conducted there I can t promise they would speak to reporters but they might The project once named by the conservative news organization NewsMax as the nation s 1 boondoggle original NewsMax link has expired has suffered a dramatic 45 fold decline in useful laboratory and storage areas per estimated dollar spent See Mello Affidavit 3 pdf pp 38 42 In constant dollars the cost of space in CMRR NF will be vastly more than what such space cost during the Cold War Mello Affidavit 3 pdf p 41 The CMRR NF and another equally huge facility proposed for the Y 12 site in Tennessee are the flagship projects in a massive reinvestment in nuclear weapons being orchestrated by the Obama Administration Not just new factories but new warheads missiles bombers submarines are all promised or under development with a staggering aggregate pricetag It is virtually certain that many of today s plans will never be completed We argue that the CMRR NF is already a fiasco and the process of recruiting affiants for this lawsuit has convinced us that many in the industry privately agree The initial briefings in our litigation regarding CMRR NF are nearly concluded We expect to file a short brief today or tomorrow regarding page limits in our Reply brief supporting our Motion for Preliminary Injunction Aside from the main arguments issues and developments of particular interest are The recommendation for dismissal from Magistrate Judge Alan Torgerson pdf and our Objections pdf to it Judge Torgerson is not the constitutionally authorized Article III judge in this case Because we objected to his recommendations the Honorable Judith Herrera

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/press/2011/press_release_26Jan2011.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Arms Treaty Rains Dollars
    In the short term the deal ensures money to keep patching up the old CMR building now 58 years old and well past its best used by date Nuclear weapons scientists analyze plutonium samples in a building long ago labeled unsafe by federal nuclear auditors In the long term there will be money quite a lot it appears to build a replacement At this point in the topsy turvy politics of Washington where a deal became the most important thing and damn the details money appears to have been no object President Barack Obama in a letter to Republican senators on the eve of the treaty vote promised to go beyond the one year 10 percent nuclear weapons budget hike in his most recent spending request I recognize that nuclear modernization requires investment for the long term in addition to this one year budget increase That is my commitment to the Congress that my administration will pursue these programs and capabilities for as long as I am president Kyl s colloquy on CMR s leaky roof was accompanied by amended language in the treaty s Senate resolution calling for annual reports on the nuclear modernization program including how the government will address rising costs beyond the current spending plan Never mind that Kyl s amendment language appears not to be legally binding Its unanimous Senate approval appeared to be enough to lure the last few Republican votes needed for treaty passage In the process it also appears to have locked us on a path to building a replacement for CMR never mind the cost to U S taxpayers And that cost could be considerable In a report to Congress last month the National Nuclear Security Administration revealed the building could cost between 3 7 billion and 5 8 billion four

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/articles/2010/ABQJrnl28Dec2010.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Excerpts from 22 Dec 2010 correspondence with Sec. Chu's CMRR-NF/UPF Review Panel
    assumes CMRR NF is 2 3 of total CMRR 3 Initial line item estimate assumes CMRR NF is 2 3 of total CMRR for lack of better data 4 Assumes CMRR NF is 2 3 of total CMRR estimate for lack of better data 5 Assumes CMRR NF is 2 3 of total CMRR estimate for lack of better data 6 Assumes CMRR NF is 2 3 of total CMRR estimate for lack of better data 7 Assumes CMRR NF is 2 3 of total CMRR estimate for lack of better data 8 Minimum CMRR NF cost shown as per request 9 Minimum CMRR NF cost shown as per request 10 Includes stated contingency 11 High point of range but omits CMR maintenance any upgrades CMR D D and applicable portion of NMSSUP Yesterday I spoke with a former member of the NRC panel which worked to improve DOE project management from 1999 to 2003 This team the members of which worked on a voluntary basis criss crossed the country and spoke to about 200 DOE people and a number of outside experts over these years and produced a number of reports Yesterday he felt that little or nothing had improved at DOE as a result of their labors As many people told the team the cost of DOE projects was set from the top down i e set politically not managerially as in the private sector Project scope as the team wrote in their 1999 report was treated by DOE as a contingency i e was set up or down by DOE s perception of what the market would bear NRC 1999 electronic page 39 It s a sorry picture and I could tell it was depressing to him It would be and is to me too The CMRR NF project breaks most of DOE s most important project management rules and the cost and schedule fallout is evident It is incredible to me that it is being allowed to proceed under these conditions with DOE s project management rules in tatters beneath A kind of monomaniacal blindness seems to have arisen regarding CMRR NF wherein no alternatives to the project are deemed possible even though project realities have changed so greatly No price it appears lately is too great to pay although exactly what capabilities would be bought is not fully apparent The scrutiny once provided by Congress and even by OMB for the first few months of this Administration is temporarily absent GAO is silent The building has become a token of larger meanings a symbol of nuclear preparedness rather than a rational tool and God knows what else It is beginning to feel a bit like the pursuit of the White Whale in Moby Dick This morning I worked up the table below using a variety of sources and modeling the 2005 CMRR NF cost at 2 3 of the stated CMR cost overall The inflator used is the CPI U costs are Total Project Costs

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

  • LANL has $6.4 billion disarmament question
    depended on for many more years of service in an effort to get new buildings It would seem possible for the most technologically advanced institution in history to be capable of building structures that can be serviceable more than 50 years Los Alamos National Laboratory had circa 2000 a comprehensive plan to upgrade the existing Chemical and Metallurgical Research facility to extend its working life well into the future Then one day someone or some group of folks said something like Heck what d really be cool is a slick new building to promote the mission and attract new talent and the Chemical and Metallurgical Research Replacement CMRR facility Boondoggle Express was off and running Initially paraded out at around 350 million today s best estimate with no cost basis yet on the horizon is 6 4 billion In other words if this were your ultimate fantasy never before attempted custom home initially quoted at 1 000 000 the estimated cost would now be 18 285 714 a cost overrun of a factor of 18 but don t convert your construction loans to a mortgage yet it s still not finished And this is just one part of Mr Obama s nuclear dream So what does this extraordinary commitment by Mr Obama really mean Is it as many suggest an effort to gin up Republican support for the new START treaty the cost of which few in the arms control community appear prepared to concede now clearly outweighs the benefits by any rational analysis Further the president could hardly send a more conflicting signal to our international colleagues We need to spend an additional eighty billion dollars to ensure the reliability of our nuclear stockpile so we can go ahead and dismantle it Say what Alternately perhaps he never really

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/articles/2010/NeilsABQJrnl1Dec2010.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Los Alamos Study Group
    Alamos National Laboratory intends to build Commissioner Kathleen Holian a former LANL employee who proposed the resolution said a new impact study is needed because the scope of the proposed facility is much more extensive than the project that was proposed in 2003 when the existing study was conducted Holian said the cost of the project which includes plans for the storage of as much as 6 metric tons of

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/articles/2010/SFNM1Dec2010.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • CMRR-NF SEIS scoping comments
    if any were notified but also because what notice was obscurely provided in the Federal Register was itself highly abridged There is such a complete lack of analysis underlying the decision to build CMRR NF that is difficult to know where to start The first step would be to lay out the proposed mission clearly This I cannot do for you As time is limited these comments will largely pass over this foundational problem I can offer a discussion of recommendations for pit management policy which bears on CMRR NF s central purpose and need It is dated about 10 months but the facts have not changed that much It is impossible to define alternatives unless NNSA clarifies the proposed mission of CMRR NF The building itself is not its mission as DOE Order 413 3A makes plain The mission need is independent of a particular solution and should not be defined by equipment facility technological solution or physical end item This approach allows the Program the flexibility to explore a variety of solutions and not limit potential solutions 6 NNSA cannot define its purpose as building a building like CMRR NF This does not generate any alternatives What does NNSA mean when it says CMRR NF is being built in a modular expansible manner In other words what is the actual decision being made This may connect with the preservation of the space to the west of CMRR NF as a possible expansion space There are many ways in which the nature of the proposed CMRR NF its project definition is vague open ended and incomplete We simply do not know the mission of CMRR NF Next comes the issue of available existing and planned infrastructure and how the proposed mission s are to be integrated with others Reasonable primary alternatives to CMRR NF will involve the use or the planned contingent use of various subsets of the following existing and planned facilities the net programmatic HazCat II space shown is approximate 1 At LANL a PF 4 HazCat II 59 500 sq ft b CMR Wing 9 Hazcat II 8 000 sq ft c CMR Wing 7 Hazcat II or III 8 000 sq ft d CMR Wing 5 Hazcat II or III 8 000 sq ft e CMR Wing 3 Hazcat II or III no HEPA 8 000 sq ft f RLUOB radiological 19 500 sq ft g Possibly others HazCat II and III 2 At LLNL a Superblock 25 000 sq ft 3 At SRS a MFFF gross area process building 500 000 sq ft b K Area Complex or PDCF incl storage 4 At INEL a Existing planned Pu facilities 5 At Pantex a Pit requalification capability modest 6 Pu storage large 7 At various sites Pu storage large 8 At WIPP disposal n a 9 Private industry sites contractor owned and operated So without being able to clarify where we stand as to mission we must come to the question of alternatives somewhat in

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/CMRR/CMRR-NF_SEIS_scoping_comments_Nov2010.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive



  •