U.S. Nuclear Weapons PoliciesU.S. Nuclear Weapons PoliciesAnd the LANL Site-Wide EISAnd the LANL Site-Wide EIS

Jay Coghlan, Executive Director Scott Kovac, Program DirectorJohn Witham, Communications Director

August 2, 3, & 5, 2006, Taos, Dixon & Eldorado, NM

The purpose of this presentation is to help encourage citizen opposition to the U.S.’ current nuclear weapons policies and the role that the Los Alamos National Laboratory plays in them.

Mission Statement

The mission of Nuclear Watch of New Mexico is to provide timely and accurate information to the public on nuclear issues in New Mexico and the Southwest and thereby help promote effective citizen action on environmental issues and nuclear weapon policies.

Nuclear Watch is proud to be a member of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability www.nuclear.org.

Why a Site-Wide EIS?• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that complex federal sites like the the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) have new site-wide environmental impact statements every 10 years, and review them for currency after 5 years.

• The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has decided to prepare a new Site-Wide EIS for “continued operations” at the Lab.

• This is due to proposed “expanded nuclear weapons activities” on top of previously expanded nuclear weapons activities and environmental changes (e.g., the Cerro Grande Fire)

What Expanded Nuclear Weapons Activities?

Los Alamos is using this Site-Wide EIS to, among other things:

• Quadruple from 20 to 80 per year the production of plutonium pits, the atomic “triggers” for today’s modern thermonuclear weapons.

• Increased production will just under double the radioactive bomb wastes that will travel on public highways to WIPP, the world’s only geologic dump for bomb wastes, “coincidentally” also in NM.

• Increase storage capacity for “special nuclear materials, mainly plutonium” to 7.3 tons. LANL had 3 tons of plutonium in 1994 .

NNSA specifically rejected a “greener alternative” because “it would not support the nuclear weapons mission assigned to

LANL.”

New Nuclear Weapon Facilities Under the LANL Site-Wide EIS the Lab would:• Build a Center for Weapons Physics (350,000 square feet)• Build eleven 2-story replacement buildings in Technical Area-3• Build a Radiological Science Institute (up to 13 new buildings)• Upgrade the Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility • Refurbish the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center• Build a Radiography Facility at the pit production site• Refurbish the plutonium pit production facility• Build a 400,000 square foot “Science Center”• Expand its computing center (51,000,000 gallons H2O/year)

No costs are given. Demolition of existing structures would produce up to 1,740 cubic yards of radioactive WIPP wastes, 153,000 cubic yards of “low level” radioactive wastes, and 4,300,000 pounds of chemical wastes.

“No Action”So called “No Action” under the LANL Site-Wide EIS includes:

• Construction of a new plutonium facility costing up to $1 billion called the Chemical and Metallurgical Research Building Replacement Project (CMRR).

• Future operation of an advanced facility that would research bioweapons agents such as anthrax and plague, purportedly for defensive purposes. However, because we sued, those operations are subject to a separate pending EIS, expected soon.

Los Alamos: Permanent Site for

Plutonium Pit Production? • Congress rejected funding for a super bomb plant, proposed to be built at one of 4 candidate sites other than Los Alamos, capable of 450 plutonium pits per year. Victory for the good guys, but will boomerang on Los Alamos.

• Domenici’s budget committee noted that new weapons plutonium facilities other than Los Alamos are financially unlikely.

• His committee ordered NNSA to study expanding the mission of LANL’s new plutonium facility. CMRR will be located next to existing plutonium pit production facility, and could enable yet higher production rates over the years.

Nuclear Weapons Complex Map

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

One Environmental NoteThe LANL Site-Wide EIS correctly leaves many future cleanup decisions to the NM Environment Department. However, the Site-Wide EIS does state that if full cleanup were to occur, it would result in:• 22,000 cubic yards of WIPP wastes• 1 million cubic yards “low level” radioactive wastes• 180,000 cubic yards mixed low level wastes• 97 million pounds of chemical wastes

This would be over 100,000 offsite shipments.

Why make more wastes from expanding nuclear weapons

programs?

A Brief Post Cold War History A Brief Post Cold War History of of

U.S. Nuclear WeaponsU.S. Nuclear Weapons PoliciesPolicies

Nuclear Posture Reviews

1994 • Reduced delivery systems, not nuclear warheads.• “No new-design nuclear warhead production.” • Good news: “Fully implement nuclear arms control agreements and NPT [NonProliferation Treaty], BWC [Biological Weapons Convention] , and CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention].”

2001 • Expanded the rationale for potential use of nuclear weapons and targeting from 2 countries to 7.• Mandated capability to “certify new warheads in response to new national requirements; and maintain readiness to resume underground nuclear testing if required." • Called for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and lower-yield, more usable nuclear weapons.

Opportunity Missed & Gone

May 2002 Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty• Russia and U.S. to each go down to 2,200 or under deployed nuclear weapons. • Treaty expires December 31, 2012, unless extended. • No verification. Either party can withdraw at anytime with 3 months notice.• No mandate for irreversible dismantlements.• Omits tactical “battlefield” nuclear weapons.

May 2002 National Security Strategy assumes right to pre-emptive war.

Pentagon’s March 2005 draft Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations:“Geographic combatant commanders may request Presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for… (e) For rapid and favorable war termination on US terms. (f) To ensure success of US and multinational operations. Draft was withdrawn after adverse national and international publicity.

It Gets Worse

Article VI: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament...”

In 1996, the International Court of Justice ruled that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons was illegal, except for dire national survival, and concrete steps toward disarmament were required.

2000 NPT Review Conference: nuclear weapons signatories pledged to 13 specific disarmament steps.

The 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty

• Unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, potentially leading to a resumed nuclear arms race with Russia.• Blocked a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.• Targeted non-nuclear weapons states with nuclear weapons, giving them additional incentive to acquire nuclear weapons (e.g., Iran and North Korea).• Made a nuclear “deal” with India, a NPT non-signatory.• Declared the self-appointed right to pre-emptive war, including nuclear war.• Started pursuing new-design weapons through the Reliable Replacement Warhead.

What has the Bush Administration done?

• In 2005 Congress created the RRW Program “for improving the long-term safety, reliability, and security of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.”• Despite $68 billion invested, NNSA and weapons labs say the Stockpile Stewardship Program is no longer sustainable.• Linton Brooks, head of NNSA, to US Senate, April 2005: “The Cold War legacy stockpile may also be the wrong stockpile from a military perspective” and we can develop RRW by 2012-2015.• Linton Brooks at Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, March 2006: “the RRW can adapt an existing weapon within 18 months and design, develop and begin production of that new design within 3-4 years… we can respond quickly to changing military requirements.”

The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program

• More than 1,000 tests.• Lab directors have certified reliability since 1992.• Most components are non-nuclear and can be tested in labs.• Senior scientists say there are “straightforward” ways of guaranteeing reliability, such as more tritium replenishment.• To nuclear war planners, reliability is whether a weapon’s yield is + 5% of design, not if it actually explodes.

“The stockpile is healthy, it is reliable. It meets all the safety standards, it is ready to go, and it will kill you… You think our weapons don't work? Go stand under one. But don't take your wife and kids." Bob Peurifoy, retired Sandia nuclear weapons scientist, March 12, 2006

Existing U.S. Nuclear Weapons Are Reliable

Vote!!! Watchdawg says “if you don’t vote, don’t *itch.” Hassle your congressional delegation, make your opinions known, write letters to the editor, etc. Most importantly, DON’T MOURN, ORGANIZE!!!

Submit comments on the LANL Site-Wide EIS by September 5 (we’ll have sample comments on our website not later than August 30).

Argue that money spent on US nuclear weapons is better spent on true long-term national security threats, such as energy independence, global climate change, natural disasters, health care needs and true nuclear weapons nonproliferation by example.

Stayed informed, tune in, and support us at WWW.NUKEWATCH.ORG.

Our children, grandchildren, and their kids deserve better than nuclear weapons.

What can concerned citizens do?

Why Bother to Submit Comments?• Federal agencies are required to respond to comments. As a result, the public gets more, often difficult to get information. It also helps create more extensive public legal record.

• Citizen comment compelled Los Alamos to include wildfire risks in

its final 1999 Site-Wide EIS. Nine months later the Cerro Grande Firebroke out. Risk analysis arguably helped prevent serious contamination.

• Federal agencies are required to look at reducing adverse environmental effects. This can result in greater protection.

• Lack of comment on policy just emboldens the nuclear weaponeers.However, comments for the LANL Site-Wide EIS on policies are ultimately just one step in what needs to be a broader movement.

Where Do I Submit Comments?

• By mail to:Ms. Elizabeth WithersLANL SWEIS Document ManagerNational Nuclear Security Administration Los Alamos Site Office528 35th Street, Los Alamos, New Mexico, 87544

• By fax to (505) 667-5948

• By e-mail to LANL_SWEIS@doeal.gov

• By telephone for recording to 877.491.4957

• Do it not later than September 5!

Public Hearings

• Tuesday, August 8, 6:30 - 9:30 p.m.Fuller Lodge 2132 Central Avenue, Los Alamos

• Wednesday, August 9 (Nagasaki Day!), 6:30 - 9:30 p.m., Northern New Mexico Community College (Eagle Memorial Sportsplex), 921 Paseo de Oñate, Española.

• Thursday, August 10, 6:30 - 9:30 p.m.Santa Fe Community College Main Building, Jemez Rooms6401 Richards Avenue, Santa Fe.

Keeping It Real

• President Bush has declared all options are on the table when it comes to dealing with alleged Iranian nuclear facilities.

• Should there be a U.S. nuclear strike against Iran, the weaponof choice would probably be an earth-penetrator designed to destroy underground targets. It would inevitablycause massive collateral damage and widespread fallout.

• That earth-penetrator is a variant of a Los Alamos design, weaponized by Sandia, and produced by the weapons complex.