 |
|
|
| | | published Monday, November 22, 2010 | 1620 Views :: 0 Comments | |  |
November 19, 2010
Cost and Goals at Center of Arms Treaty Debate
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
The standoff this week over ratification of a new arms control treaty
centers on a simple phrase: nuclear modernization. Those two words conceal a
little known, enormously ambitious plan to do nothing less than rebuild the
nation’s atomic complex for the 21st century.
At stake in the stalled negotiations between the White House and Senate
Republicans is not only how much money to spend on the project but, more
philosophically, what purpose should be served by building new complexes
that can pump out more nuclear arms than ever.
In seeking Senate support for the so-called New Start treaty with Russia,
the White House agreed to spend $85 billion over the next decade upgrading
the nuclear weapons system, only to find itself stymied by resistance from
unsatisfied Republicans.
The deal-making puts President Obama in the paradoxical position of
investing vast sums in nuclear weapons even as he promises to put the world
on a path to eliminating them.
Even if the project goes forward with that much money, that may not be the
end of it. Experts in nuclear weapons agree that the job of building a set
of giant factories that can make warheads for the nation’s arsenal would
take at least 20 years and countless more billions than are currently
budgeted.
“These individual projects have a long history of taking longer and costing
more than the original estimates,” said Robert Alvarez, who from 1993 to
1999 was a policy adviser to the secretary of energy, who runs the nation’s
nuclear complex.
The main projects are in Kansas City, Mo.; Oak Ridge, Tenn.; and Los Alamos,
N.M., the birthplace of the bomb. In each place, aging buildings left over
from the cold war would be replaced, and the technology to build warheads
would be updated.
Over all, the Obama administration would like to be able to produce up to 80
warheads a year — far more than are needed to replace the warheads destroyed
annually by testing, but far fewer than the 125 or more warheads a year that
the Bush administration had envisioned.
Nuclear experts say that without the refurbishment program, the nation’s
arsenal could slowly shrink as warheads fail or are used up in destructive
testing.
“This is a generational shift,” said Hans M. Kristensen, a nuclear expert at
the Federation of American Scientists, a private group in Washington. “It’s
the start of a new era.”
But arms controllers say it is largely unnecessary to rebuild the nation’s
atomic complex, especially for a president who has pledged himself to a
world free of nuclear arms and has set the negotiation of a new arms treaty
with Russia as one of his main foreign policy objectives.
Whether or not the New Start treaty passes, it seems likely that some
modernization of the nuclear weapons complex will move forward. Whatever its
budget, the Energy Department wants the capability to make replacement
warheads and keep its stockpile up to date.
If the clash over rebuilding the nation’s nuclear arms complex has an
epicenter, it lies in New Mexico on the flanks of an extinct volcano near an
active geologic fault that has sent the project’s costs spiraling upward.
There, in the Jemez Mountains, amid the tall pines and deep canyons of the
Los Alamos laboratory, work has begun on a weapons site that, when finished,
will rival in size the Capitol in Washington, according to Nuclear Watch, a
private group in Santa Fe, N.M.
The jittery foundations of the project and the safeguards meant to deal with
earthquakes help explain its soaring costs. Jay Coghlan, the director of
Nuclear Watch, said that the project at Los Alamos started in 2004 with a
price tag of $660 million — a tiny fraction of its current projected cost of
up to $5.8 billion.
“It climbs ever upward,” Mr. Coghlan said in an interview, of the estimated
cost. “Nobody knows just how high it’s going to go.” And this project is
just one of the planned refurbishments for Los Alamos.
A main rationale for the work lies in the difficulty of knowing — in the
absence of explosive testing, which the United States gave up in 1992 —
whether the bombs will go off as designed. The problem is similar to knowing
whether an automobile in storage will start when turned on for the first
time in decades.
Since the cold war, the federal government has spent many billions of
dollars to give the nation’s bomb makers complex tools for assessing warhead
reliability. A rigorous test involves the disassembly and destructive
testing of a weapon’s constituent parts.
Mr. Kristensen said that, each year, the government now does such
examinations to the point of destroying about seven warheads — one for each
of seven weapon types. Replacing them would require seven new arms. But the
Obama plan envisions a far greater rate of production.
Arms controllers say that the excess capacity is unneeded and that
refurbishment of the existing complex would suffice.
“There’s no question they could maintain the stockpile at a very high
standard with the existing facilities,” said Christopher E. Paine, director
of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private
group in Washington.
At Los Alamos, the half-built complex taking shape in Technical Area 55 is
part of a sprawling plant to make atomic triggers for nuclear arms. The
opaque name of the new complex? The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Replacement Facility.
Ground for the first of two buildings was broken in 2006, and it now stands
complete. The other is to be finished in 2022.
The site lies roughly a mile from a fault line, and controversy swirls over
the seismic risks and safeguards for the second building, which is to hold
atomic fuel.
On Oct. 1, the Energy Department announced that it would prepare a
supplemental environmental impact statement that would focus on the
facility’s construction and operation.
The notice said new information from geotechnical studies had resulted in
updated plans “for seismic safety.” The changes, it said, include more
structural steel, more concrete, and a deeper foundation that will require
more excavation.
Officials say the arms complex should be built at Los Alamos because of
security requirements, the proximity of important ancillary facilities and
the prohibitive cost of moving it elsewhere.
“We’re looking at alternatives,” said Toni Chiri, a spokeswoman for the
National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Energy Department.
“Our preferred option is to build where we had planned to.”
The bigger question is whether all the pieces of the giant project will move
forward given the long timeline, the astronomical bill and the political
maneuvering over the treaty’s approval.
“We are now at a crossroads,” Michael R. Anastasio, the director of Los
Alamos, told the Senate in July. If the nation forgoes the new factories, he
said, “the costs associated with maintaining the existing facilities will
eventually overwhelm the weapons program budgets.”
Still, Mr. Anastasio expressed concern over whether the nation had the
wherewithal for revamping the complex and sustaining “an appropriate budget
over the several decades for which it will be required.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/us/politics/20nuke.html?_r=2&ref=william_j_broad
|
| Comments |
Currently, there are no comments. Be the first to post one!
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can login here |
|
 |
|