|
Opposition from New Mexico Elected Officials, University of California, LANL, and NNSA to Industrial Plutonium Pit Production at LANL
1992 – 2006
March 8, 2018
Related LASG links:
1990
Committee says LANL should use plutonium capabilities (pg 9)
The Santa Fe New Mexican, Bob Quick, Nov 15, 1990
"I do think it is very clear that we are a research and development facility," said Eugene Werka, association director for Chemistry and Materials at the Laboratory. "We are not a (plutonium) production facility nor is it our intent to do production."
University of California, Office of the President, letter to to H. L. Daneman, HLD Associates, Mar 16, 1990
"Let me further add that the University has no intention of managing a production facility. Our contract calls for research only."
1992
Lab Made Plutonium for Arms (pg 13)
Albuquerque Journal, John Fleck, Jan 18, 1992
According to Hecker [Sig Hecker, LANL Director], the Technical Area 55 plutonium laboratory, completed in the late 1970s, originally was to be used strictly for research.
…
According to the budget documents, the plutonium laboratory "has been used for production, for which it was not designed.
…
Los Alamos's laboratory could be sufficient to replace Rocky Flats.
Officials at the DOE and Los Alamos say they have no such plan.
LANL head can't recall testimony (pg 14)
The Associated Press, Jan 19, 1992
According to the documents, the plutonium laboratory "has been used for production for which it was not designed. One-fourth of its area is worn out and will need to be replaced."
DOE Confirms Los Alamos Lab Could Get Plutonium Work (pg 19)
Albuquerque Journal, John Fleck, Aug 19, 1992
Los Alamos is not a candidate site for the new permanent plutonium plant.
Los Alamos spokesman Bill Heimbach said the laboratory opposes any shift to production work, but left the door open to the possibility. "We are a research and development facility and have no interest in going into the production business," he said Tuesday. "On the other hand, we realize that Los Alamos National Laboratory's facilities are owned by the Department of Energy and they have a final say on our mission."
The University of California, which manages Los Alamos for the Energy Department, also objects to production-scale plutonium processing and the manufacture of bomb parts at Los Alamos, a university official said this week.
"The university has taken the stance all along that it doesn't get in the business of manufacturing nuclear weapons," said Tommy Ambrose, head of the university's Office of Laboratory Affairs. But Ambrose did say the university could turn over management of weapons production to a private company.
…
"Los Alamos is a research facility, and that’s what I think it needs to remain,” Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., in a telephone interview.
Bingaman said that he would object to any attempt to expand Los Alamos’ mission to plutonium storage and processing or production of nuclear weapons parts.
Groups: DOE wants plutonium at LANL (pg 22)
The Santa Fe New Mexican, Keith Easthouse, Aug 25, 1992
LANL officials are opposed to having the laboratory serve as a plutonium storehouse. They also have expressed opposition to the possibility that the lab could replace Rocky Flats as a plutonium processing and production facility.
Such facilities pose a much greater hazard to the environment because they require the handling of large quantities of plutonium.
1993
Group says lab plans to build weapons (pg 30)
The Santa Fe New Mexican, Keith Easthouse, Feb 10, 1993
Lab officials have repeatedly said they do not want the laboratory to become a bomb production or plutonium processing facility because of the worker safety and environmental hazards that would be involved.
Los Alamos Could Supply Plutonium for All N-Bombs
Lab's Annual Plutonium Capacity May Be Enough for 300 Weapons
(pg 33)
Albuquerque Journal, John Fleck, Dec 8, 1993
Portions of the building that had been set up for plutonium fabrication have been assigned other duties, said laboratory spokesman Jim Danneskiold. Danneskiold also said current, stricter worker radiation protection rules limit the amount of plutonium work that could be done.
Danneskiold also Tuesday reiterated Los Alamos' position that it does not want to become a nuclear weapons factory, saying such a role would damage the laboratory's basic research mission..
1994
LANL may turn into top bomb factory in U.S. (pg 36)
The Santa Fe New Mexican, Keith Easthouse, Mar 8, 1994
The possibility that Los Alamos National Laboratory may develop a small-scale capability to build nuclear bombs carries the risk that large-scale nuclear weapons manufacturing could be centered at Los Alamos in the 21st century, a top lab official said.
Paul Cunningham, program manager for nuclear materials and reconfiguration technology, said it is not the lab’s intention to take on a large-scale production role – which would pose great environmental and safety hazards and could interfere with the lab’s much-ballyhooed effort to build ties to private industry.
But he said that he couldn’t rule out the possibility that once the lab has the capability to do production work on a small scale, it would eventually take on a larger role.
“We’d be opposed to that,” Cunningham said. “But I can’t guarantee that at some future time, if there is a need to replace (nuclear weapons) in quantity, that that wouldn’t happen here.”
…
Last year, a laboratory official said plutonium manufacturing work would bring with it extreme security measures that would have a chilling effect on the lab's interactions with private industry.
"It doesn't fit the future of the laboratory as envisioned by our director," said Richard Mah, who at the time was director of the lab's weapons complex reconfiguration program.
Mah also said production work would detract from the lab's weapons research work and could take away funding and personnel from other defense-related projects.
1995
Hearing sought on N-weapons plan (pg 41)
Albuquerque Journal North, Journal Staff Report, Jun 29, 1995
Will tourists still come to Santa Fe if Los Alamos begins making plutonium "pits" - the triggers for nuclear warheads?
Santa Fe Mayor Debbie Jaramillo is worried that tourism will suffer if the U.S. Department of Energy selects the Los Alamos National Laboratory to produce the devices.
In a letter to Tara O'Toole, the DOE's assistant secretary of environment, safety and health, Jaramillo asked that the agency conduct a public hearing in Santa Fe on its post-Cold War philosophy on nuclear weapons, called the "Stockpile Stewardship Program." The stewardship program envisions shifting the production and recycling of pits to LANL and a national laboratory in South Carolina.
"There is substantial evidence that LANL may take on certain production roles in support of national nuclear weapons programs. Thsi can have potentially adverse environmental impacts that would preclude positive economic development in our region and be especially harmful to our tourist industry," Jaramillo said in her letter, sent Friday.
Mayor urges DOE to hold hearing here (pg 41)
The Santa Fe New Mexican, Ben Neary, Jun 29, 1995
City Councilor Steven Farber noted at Wednesday's council meeting that Jaramillo – who has on occasion been criticized for being less than supportive of Santa Fe's tourist economy – stated in her letter that if Los Alamos takes over a weapons production role, it could be especially harmful to the region’s tourist industry.
Public to discuss LANL's future (pg 43)
The Santa Fe New Mexican, Aug 1, 1995
Santa Fe city government is sponsoring a workshop and publc hearing on the future of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.
The city intends the meeting, scheduled for Saturday, to give the public an opportunity to comment on a U.S. Department of Energy plan that could turn Los Alamos National Laboratory into a nuclear bomb-making center in the 21st century.
Although the DOE -- the parent agency of the Los Alamos lab -- has held meetings on the plan in Los Alamos and Albuquerque, it declined Mayor Debbie Jaramillo's request to hold a meeting here.
The agency stated that there is no DOE facility in Santa Fe.
The lab traditionally has been a nuclear weapons research facility.
Production work involves the handling of greater amounts of nuclear materials and therefore poses a greater threat to workers and the environment.
Leaders, public share ideas on lab (pg 44)
The Santa Fe New Mexican, Sharyn Obsatz, Aug 6, 1995
“There are a number of people in this community who do not support jobs that lead to the death of people,” City Councilor Steven Farber said during a press conference. The lab and the federal government should refocus money and employees on cleaning up the environment and promoting the Earth’s “well being,” he said.
…
“It’s about the quality of jobs,” Jaramillo said during a break in the hearing.
She said in her speech that the lab will stay “culturally isolated” if it focuses only on designing and building bombs. The lab should shift to research on environmental restoration, arms control and technology transfer, she said.
…
“I’d like to see Los Alamos become not an island of paranoia and privilege,” she said, “but a place of hope and opportunity for people of Northern New Mexico, for their children and for the world.”
Santa Fe mayor calls Los Alamos "island of paranoia and privilege' (pg 45)
Los Alamos Monitor, Stephen T. Shankland, Assistant Managing Editor, Aug 7, 1995
“We need to stop nuclear weapons production," said Santa Fe City Councilor Steven Farber at the news conference. "We need to redirect the government money spent in the nuclear weapons cycle to environmental issues."
1998
Report: U.S. Won’t Make Enough Nuke Triggers (pg 41)
Albuquerque Journal, Ian Hoffman, Dec 12, 1998
“Our job is not to put in a major production line but to re-establish the capability,” Christensen [Dana Christensen, a chemical engineer and deputy director of the Nuclear Materials Technology Division at LANL.] said Friday. “We’ve demonstrated we can cast and machine very close to war reserve specification.”
The Energy Department is considering a plan to build a much larger plutonium-pit factory, able to turn out 150-500 pits a year, at either its Pantex plant near Amarillo or its Savannah River Site near Aiken, S.C. No cost estimates are available for such a factory, but they likely will run to several billion dollars.
Aiken is the hometown of Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who requested the GAO study of pit manufacturing.
1999
Bingaman Seeks Funds For Design of Weapons Facility (pg 42)
Albuquerque Journal, Ian Hoffman, Apr 15, 1999
"This would not be a Taj Mahal but a scaled-down, streamlined facility that would meet the needs of the lab at a lower cost than they are met now,” Ludecke said.
2000
Nuke Report Vexes Activists, Group Fears LANL Will Become Warhead Producer (pg 48)
Albuquerque Journal, Jennifer McKee, Jan 6, 2000
Greg Mello, of the Santa Fe-based Los Alamos Study Group, said the report all but points to Los Alamos as the site of any new larger-scale pit plant.
“That’s been DOE’s constant plan for the last eight years,” said Mello, chairman of the lab watchdog group.
He pointed to reports from the DOE’s Albuquerque Operations Office that call for an additional $500 million over the next 15 years for new buildings and facilities earmarked for expanded pit production.
He’s vowed to oppose the growth tooth and nail.
…
“There have never been any plans for large-scale pit manufacturing at Los Alamos,” Danneskiold said. [Lab spokesman Jim Danneskiold]
2002
Plutonium pits and LANL’s Nuclear future (pg 75)
The Santa Fe New Mexican, Jeff Tollefson, Jun 16, 2002
McCoy [Don McCoy, deputy associate director for weapons physics at Los Alamos] said Los Alamos is not on the list of possible locations for the pit-production facility, while many observers have cited the DOE’s Savannah River site in South Carolina as the most likely choice. Nonetheless, Cutler [NNSA’s spokeswoman Lisa Cutler] said, all DOE sites are on the table.
LANL on Plutonium Plant List
Domenici: Lab Not Right Fit (pg 79)
Albuquerque Journal, Mark Oswald, Sep 21, 2002
One of Los Alamos National Laboratory's most enthusiastic and influential boosters Sen. Pete Domenici is down playing the idea of LANL becoming the home of a huge new facility for manufacturing the plutonium cores of nuclear weapons.
…
But in a news release this week, Domenici, R-N.M., suggested Los Alamos is not the right spot for the pit plant, which is expected to cost up to $4 billion, be online by 2020 and create jobs for as many as 1,500 people.
Domenici a champion for LANL funding and operations over the years noted the Los Alamos lab already is developing an interim pit production operation, intended to make a small number of pits by 2007. But the senator's news release said "it is unlikely that a large manufacturing operation would be a good match to the research focus at the lab."
"I anticipate that further study will decide against locating this capability at Los Alamos, which could enhance the prospects for Carlsbad," Domenici said.
…
Domenici spokesman Chris Gallegos said Domenici's comments "just reflect the senator's view that he has developed over time that Los Alamos probably wouldn't be the best site for a manufacturing facility, because it's mainly a research facility."
Research "is the primary focus at Los Alamos and where its growth will be over time," Gallegos said.
2003
Lawmakers’ Fiat Shocks Activists (pg 16)
Albuquerque Journal, Adam Rankin, Jul 7, 2003
* State's congressional delegates all signed letter backing Carlsbad for new nuke factory
…
In a strong, bipartisan show of support, Democrats Bingaman and Udall, along with their Republican counterparts, Sen. Pete Domenici and Reps. Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce, signed a June 30 letter to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham supporting Carlsbad as the proposed location of the "Modern Pit Facility," a $2 billion to $4 billion factory under consideration by the Department of Energy.
…
But Bingaman and Udall only signed the letter on the condition that it contain a qualifier.
"It was originally written as if the Modern Pit Facility was a foregone conclusion," said Udall spokesman Glen Loveland.
"Congressman Udall insisted that we add an initial paragraph that says they should consider Carlsbad only if it is found this facility is really needed."
In the final version of the letter to Abraham, the second sentence now reads: "If it is determined such a facility is necessary, we believe the WIPP site in Carlsbad, New Mexico, provides the best option ... " "We just wanted to stress the debate is still going on, and no final decisions have been made," Loveland said. "We know they don't want it in northern New Mexico, and at this point, that is our primary concern."
In Bingaman's case, he also wrote a separate letter to Abraham expanding on the group's statement. "If the Department determines that such a facility is necessary, and has carefully informed the public and the Congress of all the safety, environmental and fiscal consequences of the Facility, then I believe that the WIPP facility at Carlsbad should be seriously considered as the best option for its location," Bingaman wrote.
Nuke Plant Doubts Voiced
Richardson Not Sure N.M. Being Seriously Considered (pg 24)
Albuquerque Journal, Adam Rankin, Dec 24, 2003
Gov. Bill Richardson on Tuesday expressed misgivings about government plans to possibly build a $2 billion to $4 billion nuclear weapons plant in New Mexico.
His comments come months after all five of the state's congressional delegates joined in a bipartisan message to say they favored siting the plant in Carlsbad.
"I have serious reservations about that project," Richardson said Tuesday at a news conference.
…
In June, Democrats Sen. Jeff Bingaman and Rep. Tom Udall signed a letter to DOE chief Spencer Abraham endorsing Carlsbad as a potential site for the plant only if the DOE deems the facility necessary. They joined Republicans Sen. Pete Domenici, Rep. Heather Wilson and Rep. Steve Pearce in recommending Carlsbad be given preference over other sites for the project that would bring with it about 1,000 jobs.
2005
Anxiously, Los Alamos Awaits a New Era (pg 51)
The New York Times, William J. Broad, May 17, 2005
On a deeper level, the struggle is over Los Alamos's mission - whether it should turn away from its traditional role as a center of scientific excellence toward a narrower one focused on weapons design and production, in essence a bomb factory.
…
But officials and experts both inside and outside Los Alamos say they worry that putting the lab in industrial hands may accelerate an exodus of vital personnel, diminish its ability to do world-class science and leave it poorly equipped to carry out the Bush administration's plans as well as its traditional responsibilities.
"I'm not sure that turning Los Alamos into a lackluster lab more focused on manufacturing is a good thing for the country," said Dr. Hugh Gusterson, an analyst at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies the nation's nuclear arms laboratories. "If you're trying to recruit a young Ph.D. from Princeton, and you tell them you're working for the University of California and not a bomb shop, it really matters."
Dr. Gusterson, who visited Los Alamos last month, said he had never seen morale so low. "People were just stricken," he said. "They're worried that Los Alamos will increasingly become a manufacturing facility. A lot of people were talking about early retirement."
…
Isolated in the mountains of New Mexico, the Los Alamos National Laboratory employs 14,000 people on an annual budget of $2.2 billion. Nuclear weapons research is only one of its missions; it is ranked as one of the world's top laboratories in terms of the number and quality of its unclassified scientific papers, as measured by how often subsequent papers cite them.
Los Alamos has long maintained that the high quality of its science lifts its other endeavors.
…
"The future of the lab is up in the air right now," said Greg Mello, director of the Los Alamos Study Group, a private arms-control organization in Albuquerque that monitors weapons laboratories. "The question is how hard core Los Alamos is going to be, how much science and how much production."
…
Dr. Gusterson of M.I.T. said the government needed to move carefully lest it cripple what has been a giant of national security.
"I'm sure it's attractive to have a tightly run ship," he said. "But you'll get worse science."
Lab Expected to Get New Plutonium Unit (pg 70)
Albuquerque Journal, John Arnold and John Fleck, Nov 9, 2005
The United States has not had a large-scale plutonium factory since the Rocky Flats Plant outside Denver shut down in 1989. Los Alamos has long been seen as an interim manufacturing site while DOE develops plans for a large new factory.
…
Domenici said that the CMR project is not directly tied to pit manufacturing.
"However, as long as the pit manufacturing mission remains at LANL, the more important the (CMR) facility is. It performs the analytical experiments on pits and other special nuclear material," he said in a written statement.
Work will begin on the CMR building's first phase·- a radiological laboratory- early next year, Roark [Lab spokesman, Kevin Roark] said.
2006
Lab folks mum on pit production (pg 95)
Los Alamos Monitor, Roger Snodgrass, Aug 9, 2006
Greg Mello, executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group, said that a decision to quadruple the pit production would dramatically change the laboratory, and he didn't think people in Los Alamos yet realized what that would mean.
Jodi Benson of Los Alamos, among others, made the implication explicit.
"This is going to specifically change the direction of Los Alamos, moving it from science to production," she said, sharing a view she had heard expressed in the community. In the past, LANL officials have expressed little interest in assuming a major pit production role at the weapons laboratory.
A handful of speakers from Los Alamos, such as Ed Grothus, were either retired or not directly employed by the laboratory.
Chuck Pergler, an environmental consultant for a company with laboratory contracts, said new pit production might not even be necessary and that studies about pit longevity in the existing weapons stockpile should be studied, "before we spend a billion dollars" on this kind of expansion.
Critics dominate environmental meetings (pg 97)
Los Alamos Monitor, Roger Snodgrass, Aug 11, 2006
“I was surprised that not one single person stood up to defend pit production, or even the existence of US nuclear deterrent – and NNSA did not presume to defend it either,” said Greg Mello this morning, after attending all three nights, including the public meeting in Espanola on Wednesday. Mello is the executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group who has tracked the laboratory’s processes for nearly two decades.
“At the Modern Pit Facility hearings, NNSA officials did attempt to justify the mission and need,” Mello continued. “Here, no one stood up to defend the program.”
He said only the lab’s scientists were spoken of favorably, mostly by people who thought they should be employed more constructively.
…
The no-action alternative would continue the current ceiling of 20 pits per year, approved in a 1999 decision.
Santa Fe City Councilor Matthew Ortiz led off the meeting by reading a resolution co-sponsored by all but one of the members of the nine-person city council, objecting to the proposed expanded nuclear weapons activities alternatives in the draft document.
The resolution, expected to pass at the governing body’s meeting at the end of the month, called for an extension of the comment period, as did many individuals during the course of the evening.
Feds bid to transform weapons complex (pg 104)
Los Alamos Monitor, Roger Snodgrass, Nov 2, 2006
A spokesman for Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said this morning the senator supports NNSA's objectives to modernize the nuclear weapons complex and to make it more cost-effective.
"He supports the forward movement, without saying specifically whether the laboratory should get this or that," said Chris Gallegos from the senator's office.
Concerning the plan to expand pit production, he added that a no action alternative to be included in the evaluation could "leave the pit capacity where it is now."
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., campaigning in New Mexico, responded to a question about the possibility that LANL might be selected for the consolidated plutonium center.
"Given the site's layout on a mesa with surrounding local communities, LANL does not appear to be suited to become home to the nation's central storage facility for weapons plutonium," Bingaman said.
A spokesman for Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., Tom Nagle said, "From the briefings we've had, it doesn't look like Los Alamos is the best place for this."
In addition to Los Alamos, other sites under consideration for the consolidated plutonium center are Nevada Test Site, Pantex Plant, Y-12 National Security Complex and the Savannah River Site.
…
If the task of production does fall to Los Alamos, NNSA Deputy Director for Defense Programs Thomas D'Agostino's view is that managing a national scientific laboratory is not the same as managing a nuclear pit manufacturing facility and may even require a separate manager at Los Alamos.
Labs at Center of Pits Debate Again (pg 113)
Albuquerque Journal, John Arnold, Dec 4, 2006
Both Udall and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., called for hearings next year to determine whether the new weapon is needed.
Bingaman said regardless of what happens with the new warhead, LANL is not the best choice for a permanent facility to produce pits.
Not only does Bingaman have concerns about security and the additional nuclear waste that would be created by such a facility, but "(LANL) has always been a science lab, so it doesn't necessarily fit in with the mission of the lab," said Jude McCartin, the senator's spokesman.
…
Although Los Alamos is on the short list for the permanent center, nuclear security administration officials don't think the lab is ideal because it would be more difficult to secure than other potential sites, according to Tom D'Agostino, the agency's deputy administrator for defense programs. LANL's aging facilities also present a challenge.
Complex 2030 calls for the eventual production of 125 pits a year. LANL's plutonium center, Technical Area 55, was built in the 1970s and isn't equipped to handle such a workload, D'Agostino said.
"(LANL's plutonium facility) is designed as a set of research bays and for doing work in an incremental way," D'Agostino said. "It's not laid out as a modern manufacturing plant would be laid out, so it's less than ideal."
|
