 |
Complex "Modernization" |
|
 |
|
 |
After our member groups and allies successfully beat back Department of Energy expansion efforts under the banner of “Complex Transformation”, the laboratory directors are back with their revamped plans for “Complex Modernization”.
As part of the negotiations to ratify New Start in late 2010, President Obama promised $85 billion for “Complex Modernization”.
What is all of this money going to get us?
|
 |
| | |
|
Fiscal Year 2011 Performance Evaluation Reports |
|
|
|
|
April 12, 2012
In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by ANA member group Nuclear Watch New Mexico on March 28, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has released the Performance Evaluation Reports for its eight nuclear weapons sites. These reports are the government's scorecard for awarding tens of millions of dollars to nuclear weapons contractors, and were available to the public until 2009. But since that time NNSA has withheld them in a general move toward less contractor accountability.
Click the links below to download the Performance Evaluation Reports for each nuclear weapons site (PDFs) Note: the Sandia National Laboratory report is still undergoing review by the NNSA before it is released. |
|
| | |
|
Nuclear Weapons Sites |
|
|
|
|
View Department of Energy Nuclear Complex Sites in a larger map
This map shows Department of Energy nuclear sites. These sites include active National Nuclear securfity Administration sites, Environmental Management cleanup sites and Legacy Management sites |
|
| | |
| |
|
|
| | | published Wednesday, May 16, 2012 | 72 Views |
For Immediate Release: May 16th, 2012 Contact: Katherine Fuchs , Alliance for Nuclear Accountability - kfuchs@ananuclear.org, 414-324-4228 Aaron Albright, Rep. George Miller’s office – aaron.albright@mail.house.gov, (202) 226-0853 This week, the full House will debate two important amendments to last week’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) related to nuclear safety: one offered by Representatives Miller (CA), Visclosky (IN), and Sanchez (CA) to strike NDAA provisions that would erode safety standards and weaken oversight, and another offered by Rep. Smith (WA) that would strike provisions removing nuclear weapons from the Secretary of Energy’s jurisdiction. The Miller et al. amendment would protect the “adequate protection standard” that has guided nuclear safety oversight for more than a quarter century, ensure that nuclear oversight agencies retain a “transactional” oversight model, and prevent new layers of bureaucracy from undermining technical experts. TheSmith amendment would preserve the authority of the Secretary of Energy over the National Nuclear Security Administration.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Wednesday, May 16, 2012 | 82 Views |
In the following op-ed, ANA Director Susan Gordon argues that Rep. Martin Heinrich is not acting in New Mexico's best interest when advocating for funding a new plutonium facility at Los Alamos. Gordon states that what New Mexico really needs is funding to clean up Los Alamos' legacy of radioactive and toxic waste.
May 16, 2012
By Susan Gordon
From the Albuquerque Journal
More than a decade late and 10 times more expensive than originally forecast, the new Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement mega-building at the Los Alamos National Laboratory is a textbook example of how Congress misspends the taxpayers’ dollars.
The main mission for the facility originally would have been to support expanded production of plutonium pits – the fissile cores of nuclear weapons. Today, however, the National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the nuclear weapons complex, has determined that it does not need the new CMRR.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, May 14, 2012 | 62 Views |
The following article about a new uranium enrichment facility in North Carolina quotes ANA Nonproliferation Policy Director Tom Clements as he explains why commercializing the facility's laser-based enrichment technology could pose security threats.
May 11, 2012
By Jim Brumm From the Wilmington, NC StarNews
A public meeting on a proposal to build a laser-based uranium enrichment facility in Castle Hayne drew about two dozen residents to the University of North Carolina Wilmington on Thursday night.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission held the meeting to discuss its 2½-year review of Global Laser Enrichment's application for a license to build and operate an enrichment plant next to Global Nuclear Fuel-America's fuel fabrication plant on the sprawling campus shared by GE Aviation and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy.
Specifically, the meeting was to discuss the federal agency's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will be the basis for the commission's future consideration of an operating license for the facility.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, May 14, 2012 | 66 Views |
The following op-ed by ANA's Program Director Katherine Fuchs highlights changes to our nation's nuclear weapons oversight infrastructure that are currently being considered by the House of Representatives.
May 9, 2012
By Katherine M. Fuchs
From The Hill's Congress Blog
Today the House Armed Services Committee will debate the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), possibly overturning 25 years of safety standards at our nation’s weapons facilities. During this debate members of this committee will have a choice – they can protect communities around nuclear sites and the employees who work there or they can go on record as turning their back on those safety standards.
There are several sections of the NDAA that relate directly to nuclear safety and pose a threat to security. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this bill is the fact that it would overturn the “adequate protection standard” that has guided nuclear safety oversight for over two decades. The adequate protection standard, which through legal precedent has been defined as not allowing cost considerations to impact safety recommendations, would be muddled by a new “low as reasonably practicable” standard, an imprecise measure undefined by statute and almost certain to favor cost-cutting measures over public safety.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Friday, May 11, 2012 | 115 Views |
The following piece from WWAY in Wilmington, NC quotes ANA Nonproliferation Policy Director Tom Clements commenting on the proliferation risks involved in commercializing new uranium enrichment techniques.
May 10, 2012
By Cacky Catlett From WWAY ABC 3, Wilmington
WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) -- The public got the chance Thursday night to hear more about a proposed uranium enrichment plant to be built at the GE Hitachi plant in Wilmington.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission presented its report on the safety and economic impact. Representatives with the NRC say they used a critical process to evaluate everything from transportation to air quality impacts.
"Particulate matter, concentrations, mostly resulting from fugitive dust emissions are expected to exceed the standards but would be of short duration," NRC Project Manager Jennifer Davis said.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Thursday, May 10, 2012 | 170 Views |
May 10, 2012
By Michael Coleman From the Albuquerque Journal WASHINGTON – Rep. Steve Pearce, a New Mexico Republican, and Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, don’t agree on much, but they teamed up this week to try to block federal subsidies to a uranium enrichment plant in Kentucky.
The congressmen wrote a letter to House leaders negotiating details of a transportation bill and asked them to reject a Senate proposal to include in the legislation $150 million in federal subsidies to the United States Enrichment Corp. Pearce, who represents southern New Mexico, told the Journal that the subsidies would give USEC, based in Paducah, Ky., an unfair advantage over a similar firm in New Mexico.
Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican who ran as a champion of the fiscally conservative tea party, is among the biggest backers of the federal subsidy for USEC, arguing that about 1,400 jobs are at stake. Pearce called the Kentucky firm a “great big black hole where taxpayer dollars have been disappearing.”
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Tuesday, May 08, 2012 | 158 Views |
May 8, 2012
By Frank Munger From the Knoxville News Sentinal
 | Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance members Mary Dennis Lentsch, left, and Dennie Kelley sign a oversize letter to U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander Monday at the Howard H. Baker, Jr. Federal Courthouse. A dozen members of OREPA delivered the letter to ask that cost and safety issues be addressed at Y-12's proposed multibillion-dollar Uranium Processing Facility. (J. Miles Cary/News Sentinel)
|
A peace activist group waged its growing campaign against the Uranium Processing Facility on two fronts Monday.
Members of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance hand-delivered a letter to Sen. Lamar Alexander's Knoxville office, asking the Republican senator to help slow work on the multibillion-dollar project until safety issues raised by a federal review board have been resolved. In a separate action, the group sent a letter to Gregory Friedman, the U.S. Department of Energy's inspector general, and urged Friedman to investigate the project's work to date, with more than $500 million spent designing the new production facility, for evidence of government waste and possibly fraud.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, April 30, 2012 | 300 Views |
April 28, 2012 By John Severance From the Los Alamos Monitor Apparently, there are plans in the works for an alternative solution to the Chemistry Metallurgy Research Replacement facility, which was deferred for five years by the administration.
So what is Plan B exactly?
The public is not sure yet.
According to the Nuclear Weapons and Materials Monitor, the NNSA plans to use an existing facility at Los Alamos, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building, as well as Lawrence Livermore’s Superblock Facility and the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) at the Nevada National Security Site, and Los Alamos was expected to analyze several key components of the project during a 60-day study.
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Monday, April 30, 2012 | 282 Views |
The following article on the undoing of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory extensively quotes Scott Kovac of ANA member group Nuclear Watch New Mexico as he questions Department of Energy representatives on their "plan B" for plutonium management.
April 27, 2012
By John Severance From the Los Alamos Monitor
Sometimes, the show must go on. NNSA has decided to defer the Chemistry Metallurgy Research Replacement facility for at least five years. Activists rejoiced. Those at LANL and NNSA regrouped.
End of story, right?
Not so fast.
As part of a 2005 settlement between the Department of Energy/LANL and a coalition of community groups, a decision was reached to hold semi-annual meetings to discuss CMRR updates.
Wednesday night at Fuller Lodge there was another one of those meetings.
Steve Fong of the Los Alamos Site Office told those in attendance to expect the design deliverables to be completed by the end of the year and that the design was in “closeout mode.”
|
| read more.. |
|
| | | published Thursday, April 26, 2012 | 383 Views |
Apr 26, 2012
By John Fleck From the Albuquerque Journal A key group of House Republicans this week signaled their support for the Obama administration’s decision to eliminate funding for a multi-billion dollar new plutonium laboratory at Los Alamos, suggesting the possibility of bipartisan agreement on the controversial move.
Some Republicans in Congress have objected loudly to the administration’s decision to indefinitely defer work on the project. But the committee with jurisdiction over the nuclear weapons budget, in a spending plan made public this week, endorsed the administration’s proposal.
In a report made public late Tuesday, the Republican-controlled House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee agreed with the Obama administration’s conclusion that there is currently no need for the multi-billion dollar Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility.
|
| read more.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources |
|
|
| | | |
|
Our Weapons Experts |
|
|
| | | |
|