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".
  • Help Stop the proposed LANL Nuclear Facility
    existing organization we will meet with you and others Together we can answer some questions and pose others For the truly live questions the ones that matter most we ourselves you me and our friends are going to be the answers Not somebody else d If you live near Los Alamos work with local governments to request 1 a brand new EIS 2 a study of alternatives and 3 a pause in the project in the meantime The direct effects of construction and operation of the proposed CMRR Nuclear Facility would extend to several New Mexico counties including Los Alamos Sandoval Santa Fe Rio Arriba Bernalillo and Taos It is safe to say that essentially none of the people in the governments of those counties and the local jurisdictions within them know much if anything about the project They may have questions The existence of an active National Environmental Policy Act NEPA lawsuit gives potential legal evidentiary weight to their questions And of course they have political influence We all know some of these elected officials We want you to talk to them about the proposed Nuclear Facility This will require homework on your part see learn above There are many possible positive outcomes from such conversations not limited to issues surrounding CMRR NF An elected or managerial official could put their questions about the impacts of this facility in a letter to the National Nuclear Security Administration NNSA They might request an Environmental Impact Statement EIS which would be very helpful Asking for an environmental analysis is not the same as opposing the project It is a very reasonable and modest request It does not imply any views whatsoever regarding nuclear weapons or about environmental protection vs jobs or about any other political matter It does not imply any opinion for or against the project It is just a request for basic information and analysis that should have been provided as a matter of law to these officials to help them form views about the project and better serve their constituents What has happened is that the Department of Energy DOE and the NNSA have approached NEPA compliance in such a way as to cover up the nature and impacts of the project not reveal them If a local jurisdiction as a governing body a city or unincorporated town or village were to request an EIS for the nuclear facility so much the better It would also be helpful if elected representatives asked for a current business study of alternatives to the proposed Nuclear Facility There isn t one Here is a letter we have sent to many local government officials doc along with a sample letter here of the sort local government officials might send to the NNSA doc requesting a brand new EIS Please feel free to adapt these letters as necessary e If you do not live near Los Alamos ask your congressperson and senators to request an EIS and study of alternatives If you do

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


  • In light of lawsuit LANL planning new study
    Sept 17 letter that it plans a new environmental study of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility The Study Group filed suit in August saying the studies on which the project was based completed in 2004 do not adequately address the changed nature of the project Estimated costs have increased since 2004 while the need for the nuclear weapons work to be done in the lab has changed with changes in U S nuclear weapons policy the Study Group alleges in its lawsuit The project would replace the lab s 55 year old Chemistry and Metallurgy Research building which federal safety auditors recently reported was seismically fragile and poses a continuing risk to workers and the public Federal nuclear program managers have been trying to replace CMR for two decades but the projects have been repeatedly delayed because of rising costs and other problems The most recent cost estimate for the project was 4 billion In the Sept 17 letter Justice Department attorney John Tustin said the National Nuclear Security Administration has decided to complete a new Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the project Tustin asked the Study Group to drop its lawsuit because of the new study

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/articles/ABQJrnl23Sep2010.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Press release NNSA admission
    than triple the current year appropriation and pay for additional detailed design as well as start construction Study Group director Greg Mello The National Environmental Policy Act NEPA indisputably requires an EIS before the federal government commits to a major action that has significant environmental impacts as this one does The purpose of this important law which NNSA still seeks to evade is better decisions not just after the fact paperwork NNSA desperately does need better decisions about its nuclear weapons programs the costs of which are skyrocketing while confidence that the agency can complete its key projects is falling Previous NEPA litigation led by the Study Group in 1994 halted construction of the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrotest DARHT Facility at LANL while an EIS was prepared Then as now DOE offered to prepare an EIS while continuing the project in order to end the litigation On September 15 two days before the DOJ wrote its 9 17 letter promising a SEIS Vice President Biden wrote to Senate Foreign Relations Committee promising the Administration s full commitment to the Nuclear Facility and other NNSA projects while acknowledging that their estimated costs have increased and promising to seek additional funding to cover those costs Since the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty New START was submitted to the Senate for advice and consent questions posed during committee hearings on the Treaty have highlighted among other things the Administration s plans to modernize the U S nuclear weapons complex in particular the President s budget request for FY 2011 and projected out year requests to accomplish the missions of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programs I write to assure the Committee of the Administration s strong support for this program Our budgets seek to reverse five years of declining support for nuclear stockpile management The FY 2011 2015 President s Budget was based on the best estimates available at that time and reflected our assessment of necessary investments and the capacities to absorb increased funding Earlier this spring the Administration provided reports to Congress describing our 10 and 20 year plans respectively to sustain and modernize nuclear delivery systems and the nuclear stockpile and the associated infrastructure NNSA has used the time since the spring when the NPR and New START were concluded to work on updating initial assumptions We now have a more complete understanding of stockpile requirements including the life extension program needs Similarly the designs of key facilities such as the Uranium Processing Facility and the Chemical and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility have progressed Based on information learned since the submission of the President s FY 2011 budget and the report under section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010 we expect that funding requirements will increase in future budget years Later this fall the Administration will provide the Congress with information that updates the Section 1251 report At that time and in our future budgets we will address any deficiencies in the Future Years Nuclear Security

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/press/2010/press_release_DOJ_23Sept2010.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Lab, watchdog group spar over nuclear facility
    of effort the building is still in the design phase and now embroiled in litigation The Los Alamos Study Group a nuclear watchdog based in Albuquerque claims the building has outgrown its environmental footprint In a letter dated Sept 17 an attorney for the U S Department of Justice has asked the Los Alamos Study Group to withdraw its legal complaint The letter says the lab is still working on its requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act and therefore the environmental justification is not subject to legal action You client s case is not ripe for judicial review wrote trial attorney John Tustin in a letter on behalf of the U S Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration Greg Mello executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group said the request amounts to an admission that the project needs additional analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act but the group disagrees with the remedy They do seem to have a disconnect between the legal world of compliance and the actual world of the project Mello said Wednesday They seem to think that they can put a paperwork patch on the tail of their noncompliance but just keep going Thomas N Hnasko attorney for the study group responded to Tustin in a letter today reiterating the main point of the complaint that the nuclear facility now in process bears virtually no relationship to the project analyzed under a 2003 environmental impact statement Changed circumstances significant new knowledge changed national policies dramatic increases in expected environmental impacts and a ten fold increase in expected cost compel environmental and business case analyses of new reasonable and less environmentally destructive primary alternatives to the current action Hnasko wrote Tustin s letter said if the group declined his request he would

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/press/2010/CMRR_SFNM_22Sep2010.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Malten, ABQ JRNL, 5Sept2010
    The latest design concept for the facility is interesting CMRR NF is to be a nuclear weapons hotel that is we don t really know what or who it will host and what it will produce over time The flexibility of the building s purpose is seen as a plus grab the money build now deny everything think later seems to be the motto It is rapidly becoming another example of a mixture of Obama s misguided stimulus money for complex revitalization corporate cronyism after all LANL is now highly privatized and part and parcel of the Bechtel Corp and an inexplicable worship of godfather former Sen Pete Domenici all wrapped up together and poised to incarnate as a 4 billion bunker on a earthquake fault line One can easily see the necessity of a new EIS by law One can also easily see why the administration would like not to do one and has proceeded with its project as if it makes no difference What is the political motive behind something so irrational and pompous and out of touch with the crying needs of our time We have seen a lot of natural man made disasters in the last few years Katrina flooding fires and drought oil gushers more fires landslides earthquakes dead zones and mostly despite individual heroism we have been helpless in the face of them Yet somehow the nation is to find comfort in the idea that we can inflict such man made disasters anywhere in the world at a moments notice by dropping a tennis ball sized nuclear warhead core designed and built at the new 4 billion CMRR NF building at LANL Udall says that the main rationale for the CMRR NF behemoth is to modernize the nuclear weapons production establishment which would be in accordance with the Nuclear Posture Review published this year Udall also clarifies the relationship between the signing of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty START and the CMRR NF It takes 67 votes to pass a treaty So that means that one has to cater to the Republicans and neo cons and cajole them to sign a substantially meaningless new START treaty with Russia The new START arguably reduces the arsenal though here opinions are quite mixed does this treaty really reduce the amounts of deployable warheads but at the same time allows the parties to modernize their arsenals Despite heaped up praise through the Obama propaganda machine the new START is a pretty insignificant step towards a nuclear free world Fewer warheads but more destructive and accurate weapons In so many ways a meaningless treaty also since both sides shortly after the signing of the treaty listed their own conditions for possibly leaving the treaty at some future date of their own choosing So the latest rationale for support from a senator like Udall is that a CMRR nuclear weapons facility should be built in order to gather votes for the new START disarmament treaty Are we living in

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/articles/Malten_ABQ_JRNL_5Sept2010.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Op-Ed News 27Aug2010
    purpose is seen as a plus Grab the money Build now Deny everything Think later seems to be the motto It is rapidly becoming another example of a mixture of Obama s misguided stimulus moneys for Complex Revitalization corporate cronyism after all LANL is now highly privatized and part and parcel of the Bechtel Corporation and an inexplicable worship of godfather Pete Dominici all wrapped up together and poised to incarnate as a 4 billion dollar bunker on a earthquake fault line on the hill in Los Alamos New Mexico One can easily see the necessity of a new EIS by law One can also easily see why the administration would like not to do one and has proceeded with its project as if it makes no difference What is the political motive behind something so irrational and pompous and out of touch with the crying needs of our time We have seen a lot of natural man made disasters in the last few years Katrina flooding fires and drought oil gushers more fires landslides earthquakes dead zones etc etc and mostly despite individual heroism we have been helpless in the face of them Yet somehow the nation is to find comfort in the idea that we can inflict such man made disasters anywhere in the world at a moments notice by dropping a tennis ball sized nuclear warhead core designed and built at the new 4 billion dollar CMRR NFbuilding at LANL Udall says that the main rational for the CMRR NF behemoth is to modernize the nuclear weapons production establishment which would be in accordance with the Nuclear Posture Review NPR published this year Udall also clarifies the relationship between the signing of the START Treaty and the CMRR NF It takes 67 votes to pass a treaty So that means that one has to cater to the republicans and neocons and cajole them to sign a substantially meaningless new START treaty with Russia The new START arguably reduces the arsenal though here opinions are quite mixed does this treaty really reduce the amounts of deployable warheads but at the same time allows the parties to modernize their arsenals Despite heaped up praise through the Obama propaganda machine New START is a pretty insignificant step towards a nuclear free world Less warheads but more destructive and accurate etc In so many ways a meaningless treaty also since both sides shortly after the signing of the treaty made their own conditions for possibly leaving the treaty at some future date of their own choosing So the latest rational for support from a senator like Udall is that a CMRR Nuclear weapons Facility should be built in order to gather votes for the New START disarmament treaty Are we living in an Orwellian world yet Obviously we have a Faustian quid pro quo here Udall thinks that he can get armament and disarmament make peace with the peaceniks and build a new Nuclear Facility for new warheads As an existentialist

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/articles/Malten_Op-Ed_News_27Aug2010.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Nuke lawsuit part of bigger battle
    biggest issue is what are the alternatives for the CMRR facility Bond Graham visited Los Alamos as part of Los Alamos Study Group s effort to get the word out about its drive to shut down the plant The group Tuesday filed a lawsuit in United States District Court in Albuquerque against the Department of Energy DOE Secretary Stephen Chu the National Nuclear Security Administration and Thomas Paul D Agostino NNSA administrator In the lawsuit the group contends the nuclear plant is being built in violation of federal environmental regulations which require that an environmental impact statement be completed prior to the construction Defendants decision to construct and operate the nuclear facility comprises a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment the lawsuit states The DOE has maintained that an earlier environmental impact statement covers the 4 billion project tabbed the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility CMRR which has been delayed several times and morphed over the years Construction is expected to wrap up in 2020 Bond Graham said the group s efforts are also aimed at informing local residents of the impact that the lab will have during and after construction of the

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/articles/LAMonitor19Aug2010.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Nuke Pit Facility Just Make-Work Project
    surety of the U S nuclear stockpile while we actually led the transition to a nuclear weapons free world our obligation under international law An independent panel of acknowledged experts in the field has advised Congress that the existing inventory of pits will perform as designed at the least until the last decades of this century Why then is Mr Obama determined build a 4 3 billion facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory designed to support the manufacture of yet more pits our existing inventory of which will outlast the design life of this building twice over He has placed himself in the awkward position of defending a construction project the Chemical and Metallurgical Research Replacement Nuclear Facility that was marketed to Congress as a 350 million building that has grown to an estimated 4 3 billion with no firm cost basis yet completed Few seem willing to call it what it has become a boondoggle The Los Alamos Study Group has monitored and opposed this project from its inception in the 1999 We have now filed suit under the National Environmental Policy Act to stop all funding for and work on this building until a completely new Environmental Impact Statement is prepared Following the announcement of our intent to sue the National Nuclear Security Administration responded that it was conducting an internal review of the project and it now appears to be on the verge of announcing that in light of significant changes to the project it intends to conduct a Supplementary EIS This is insufficient A Supplementary EIS does not require the NNSA to weigh the current project against all available alternatives A Supplemental EIS is designed to assess the impacts of minor changes in a project A project that now requires 347 000 cubic yards of concrete

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/articles/Neils_ABQ_JRNL_18Aug2010.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive



  •