DOE ANNOUNCES PLANS FOR NEW BOMB PLANT IN OAK RIDGE > Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

ANA in the News

Current Articles | Search | Syndication

DOE ANNOUNCES PLANS FOR NEW BOMB PLANT IN OAK RIDGE

published Wednesday, October 28, 2009

1594 Views :: 4 Comments

Immediate release

October 27, 2009

DOE ANNOUNCES PLANS FOR NEW BOMB PLANT IN OAK RIDGE, TN
LONG AWAITED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
INCLUDES PLAN FOR $3.5 BILLION “URANIUM PROCESSING FACILITY”
TO BUILD THERMONUCLEAR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
AT Y12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX

The National Nuclear Security Administration is slated to release the long-awaited draft of the Y12 Site Wide Environmental Impact Statement with a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register by October 30, 2009. Copies of the Y12SWEIS were sent to the NNSA’s distribution list earlier this week and posted on the web at www.y12sweis.com . Among the alternatives considered in the draft EIS is the siting and construction of the Uranium Processing Facility, a new facility which would produce thermonuclear “secondaries” out of highly enriched uranium, lithium deuteride, beryllium and other materials.*

The New Bomb Plant

The Draft Y12SWEIS embraces a full-scale nuclear weapons production facility capable of producing 50-80 secondaries a year, or enough capacity to double the size of the US arsenal every 20 years, and to maintain an enduring nuclear stockpile. The preferred alternative, called the “Capability-sized UPF” would lead to an initial increase in construction employment but the eventual downsizing of nearly half the Y12 workforce and fails to address increased mission requirements for dismantlement and disposition of retired nuclear weapons.

NNSA out of touch

“The idea that the United States should invest two or three billion dollars to build more bombs when the President has declared a firm commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons is as preposterous as it is perilous,” said Ralph Hutchison, coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance. “Who’s making policy in the United States these days? What we need in Oak Ridge is a realistic plan to maintain our nuclear arsenal in a safe and secure manner while the stockpile is reduced to zero. Building a new bomb plant now, under the guise of ‘modernization,’ corrupts the President’s vision and negates all our efforts to constrain nuclear proliferation. It will place the US at the forefront of a new global nuclear arms resurgence. That’s not modernization, it’s throwback—and it’s clearly the wrong direction for the country.”

The Draft SWEIS examines five alternatives for Y12 in the coming decades, but Hutchison said it is clear that NNSA wants to build the UPF. “They’ve been after this new bomb plant for more than 20 years—the fact that the full-blown UPF alternative is in here at all represents a failure to come to grips with reality. NNSA is positioning itself to try to look ‘reasonable’ with the Capacity-based Alternative.”

Public misled about hearing process

Public hearings have been scheduled on the Draft document for mid-November, two and a half weeks after the release of the inch-and-a-half thick document.

“The Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance was surprised and deeply dismayed to see that the NNSA expects us to digest and comment on such a voluminous technical document in two weeks. Last May we were told we would have thirty days to review the document before the hearing, and a 90 day comment period. If DOE is serious about meaningful public participation, they will keep their word and fix the schedule. Right now, all we know is they are ‘looking into it.’” said Hutchison.

A reasonable alternative not considered

OREPA advocates a future scenario for Y12 in keeping with the vision of President Obama and the security needs of the country.

“Over the next ten years, we will see the production mission decline rapidly,” Hutchison said. “New stockpile numbers have already been announced and will be formalized in December when we renew the START Treaty. Obama said last April the ceiling would be 1,695 warheads, and he promised that would be only a starting point for deeper cuts in the arsenal.

“So it stands to reason that production requirements will go down, and the demand for dismantlement, storage and disposition capacity will be increasing. A dedicated, single-function dismantlement facility, with safeguards and transparency designed in, is what we need at Y12. Call it Alternative 6.”

The Draft SWEIS proposes in its fifth Alternative, the ‘No Net Production/Capability-sized UPF Alternative,’ a UPF with limited production capacity, approximately 10 secondaries/year.

“If they were serious about this alternative,” Hutchison said, “they would have developed it more, especially in terms of increasing dismantlement capacity. Instead, it is a placeholder while they try to push through the Capacity-based UPF.”

“At first glance, there are at least four significant problems with Alternative 5,” said Hutchison. “As soon as the US invests new money in new production facilities, we send the symbolic message—we’re building a new bomb plant when Iran can’t even enrich uranium. Second, in this economic climate, we should not waste money on new equipment that will likely not be needed by the time the UPF would open in 2020, especially when NNSA already plans to spend $100,000,000 to upgrade current facilities. Third, by 2020, when this plant comes on line, the US will have already modernized more warheads through the Life Extension Program than our current treaty obligations allow—we won’t need any more bombs. And finally, if the US builds a dual-use facility, we complicate verification of treaty compliance, and verification is going to be a huge issue in the future. The US should not set a precedent and raise doubts at the very moment we are trying to persuade other nations to get with the program.”

DOE mind-reading falls short

Hutchison noted the scoping hearing for the current Draft SWEIS was four years ago, in December of 2005. “We asked DOE if they thought the document needed to be re-scoped, since a lot has changed in four years. They said they had talked about it, but decided not to. They decided they could be responsive to our concerns in 2009 without actually hearing them, and this document is the result. Not surprisingly, they are not as psychic as they think.”

“Site-wide” means site-wide

OREPA believes the Y12 SWEIS not only fails to consider all reasonable alternatives, it fails to provide a comprehensive, site-wide evaluation of the ongoing activities at Y12. “The purpose of a site-wide EIS is to take a wide-angle look at everything that is going on and assess the environmental impact. It allows everyone to see what the trade-offs may be between certain activities, and it makes sure we are not working at cross purposes. Such a look is critically important at a site as complicated and contaminated as Y12, where different agencies and different contractors work side-by-side but have little cross-communication. Cleanup is managed by one contractor, defense programs by another. DOE oversees some activities, NNSA others. The Site-Wide EIS is the one place it is supposed to come together and make sense. Instead, the draft says, ‘We looked at the Steam Plant here, the Purification Facility there, and there are a lot of CERCLA studies and an agreement with the state.’ The NNSA has treated this Site-Wide EIS as though it is just a decision-making document for the UPF—this is not only short-sighted, it falls short of the spirit and rule for Site-Wide EISs. Not to mention DOE’s own regulations required it to be done in 2006.”

Y12 SWEIS tests NEPA process

The National Environmental Policy Act, the law which governs Environmental Impact Statements, envisions a decision-making process that takes seriously the input of an informed public. “This process will test NEPA,” said Hutchison. “The Alternative that OREPA will put forward is essentially a modification of NNSA’s Alternative 5. Our Alternative will be more responsive to future mission requirements, more protective of the nation’s security, and more supportive of nonproliferation efforts. In short, it will be the most reasonable alternative. I think it may have the added virtue of being the best for the community economically, and I know it will be scrupulously protective of public and worker health and safety. Whether the DOE and NNSA will modify their Final SWEIS in response to our comments remains to be seen, but when we see it, we’ll know whether NEPA really can work to bring about the best decision.”

* The “secondary” is the thermonuclear part of a nuclear weapon. Warheads in the US arsenal are triggered by a relatively small fission bomb, the primary, which in turn ignites the massive thermonuclear fusion reaction in the secondary. The Y12 National Security Complex has produced the secondary for every nuclear weapon in the US arsenal.

for more information: Ralph Hutchison 865 776 5050 | orep@earthlink.net

Comments

by Buy ugg boots cheap ugg boots ugg boots sale cheap uggs ugg boot on Monday, November 16, 2009

<a href="http://www.buddyugg.com/">Buy ugg boots</a>
<a href="http://www.buddyugg.com/">cheap ugg boots</a>
<a href="http://www.buddyugg.com/">ugg boots sale</a>
<a href="http://www.buddyugg.com/">cheap uggs</a>
<a href="http://www.buddyugg.com/">ugg boots online</a>
<a href="http://www.buddyugg.com/">uggs on sale</a>
<a href="http://www.buddyugg.com/">ugg cardy boots</a>
<a href="http://www.buddyugg.com/">ugg boots on sale</a>

by Buy ugg boots cheap ugg boots ugg boots sale cheap uggs ugg boot on Monday, November 16, 2009

by on Friday, January 01, 2010

http://www.energy-net.org/blog/?p=867

You must be logged in to post a comment. You can login here