May 21, 2011
By Joni Arends and Robert H. Gilkeson
From the Santa Fe New Mexican
The future of the nuclear-weapons complex is the topic for important public hearings this week about the proposed nuclear facility (Chemical and Metallurgy Research Replacement project) at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
The question is whether our communities want to take on the new burden of a proposed $6 billion nuclear facility with an annual manufacturing capability of 50 to 80 plutonium triggers that would store six metric tons of plutonium, that would be in an active and poorly understood seismic zone, in a wildfire area, above the Río Grande — a drinking-water supply for Santa Fe and Albuquerque.
Four public hearings are scheduled: Monday, May 23 in Albuquerque; Tuesday, May 24 in Los Alamos; Wednesday, May 25 in Española; and Thursday, May 26 in Santa Fe. The hearings will begin at 5 p.m. and continue until everyone has spoken. Exact locations are available at: http://nnsa.energy.gov/nepa/cmrrseis
The plan to manufacture new plutonium triggers contradicts the positive vision of President Barack Obama for a nuclear-weapons-free world. Many nuclear-weapons experts agree that new plutonium triggers are not needed because the existing triggers will be effective for another 80 to 100 years. And the multi-billion dollar CMRR Project is just one building proposed for "modernization" of the nuclear-weapons complex across the country at a total estimated cost over the next 10 years of $180 billion. At the same time, human-need programs have been frozen or cut.
Further, the CMRR Project design lacks adequate site-specific seismic information. A 1995 seismic report issued a warning that there was not enough information about the seismic safety of the old buildings or for proposed buildings. The warning was repeated in 2007 along with a calculation of a 50 percent increase in the potential seismic risk across the LANL site. Now new information shows a very complex geologic setting below the mesa where the proposed CMRR Nuclear Facility and other key facilities for the modernization project are located.
The 2007 site-wide report and the original design for the CMRR Project used assumed values for important seismic properties, including the shear velocity of the reference rock and for Kappa. These are fundamental values to calculate the harmonics of the geologic setting. New site-specific field studies are required over the period of many years in order to provide the necessary seismic information. We believe that assumed values for these essential properties were used in the current design.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, created by Congress to oversee the Department of Energy's nuclear facilities, continues to criticize the poor knowledge of the seismic hazard for building safety at LANL. The board determined that work should be stopped in key facilities, including the old CMR Building, which sits on an active seismic fault, the Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility, which is at the end of its life, and the Plutonium Facility, which contains unsafe ventilation and fire suppression systems.
To give an absolutely clear message, in 2009 the board stated that for the old CMR "LANL estimates a 1 in 50 chance of seismic collapse during a
10-year time frame, which would result in a release of nuclear materials." But building the CMRR Nuclear Facility would not change the level of risk for another 12 years, since the scheduled operation date is 2023. In the meantime, the old CMR and other unsafe facilities will continue to be used.
What have we learned from Fukushima about seismic risk, unsafe engineering and releases of nuclear materials? Why do our governmental agencies allow continued use of buildings, such as the old CMR? Why do our governmental agencies allow flawed projects, such as the CMRR Nuclear Facility, to move forward without the necessary seismic knowledge? Why is our government embarking on a new exorbitantly priced program to manufacture plutonium triggers when the vision of President Obama is for a nuclear-weapons-free world?
It is important to ask questions such as these about the draft environmental impact statement. Our participation, and that of our friends, at one or all four days of the hearing is needed so that the voices of the affected communities will be heard.
Santa Fean Joni Arends is the executive director of Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety. Robert H. Gilkeson is a registered geologist and technical expert on issues of seismic hazard and contamination to the environment. He lives in Los Alamos.