$47M Released for LANL Plutonium Lab
By Sue Major Holmes, The Associated PressWednesday, October 07, 2009
ALBUQUERQUE — The federal government has released $47 million toward a long-planned plutonium research lab at Los Alamos National Laboratory, a project Los Alamos officials say is vital but that nuclear watchdogs contend only positions the U.S. to build more nuclear weapons.
The building would replace an aging lab where scientists analyze samples of plutonium and other radioactive materials.
The current structure was built more than 50 years ago and upgraded earlier this decade at a cost of $90 million. About half of it has been shut down, largely because Los Alamos does not want to make further upgrades.
The Energy Department late last year approved a program limiting the most dangerous nuclear material to Los Alamos and four other sites, reflecting a significant decline in the number of warheads the United States maintains and an expectation of more reductions.
Greg Mello of the Albuquerque-based Los Alamos Study Group contends the National Nuclear Security Administration can maintain the safety of the nuclear arsenal even without the lab's Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement building, known as CMRR.
The real impetus for the new building, he believes, is that the current one “has aged to the point it cannot house NNSA's ambitions for the future.”
Mello said CMRR would position Los Alamos to make large numbers of new plutonium pit designs — the triggers of nuclear weapons.
“We view this building as a grotesque misallocation of taxpayer money and a poke in the eye to our disarmament obligations,” he said.
Los Alamos officials say they need the replacement to tell what makes up materials. Plutonium, for example, contains impurities, requiring samples to be tested and retested.
CMRR is not just about plutonium, project manager Rick Holmes said. “My scope for this project is not to expand capabilities but to replace existing capabilities,” he said.
A host of elements for purposes ranging from biomedicine to geology need to be studied, and if Los Alamos wasn't doing pit production, CMRR would be needed for other science, Holmes said.
“The size isn't driven by numbers (of weapons) in the stockpile. ... If we want to have a scientist who understands plutonium or americium in 50 years, we have to have a place to do science,” he said.
DOE and Los Alamos officials say it would cost too much to upgrade the current metallurgy structure compared to building a smaller, safer and more efficient one. “It's substantially harder to modify an existing house than to build a new one,” Holmes said. “You always end up compromising something.”
There's no exact cost figure for CMRR, but a U.S. Senate report last year estimated it at $2.6 billion — more than five times the initial estimate of about $500,000. “As time passes, things don't get cheaper,” Holmes said.
The price tag must await a final design, which cannot be done until completion of an ongoing national nuclear posture review. The Pentagon began work in April on the report on threats and deterrent capabilities. It's due next year.
Mello said the expense of CMRR “is a commitment to a particular vision for Los Alamos National Laboratory,” one that lays the groundwork for an expanding nuclear program and increases the relative importance of producing plutonium pits over other lab programs.
Holmes said Congress decides funding priorities, adding, “Somehow we found $700 billion for the TARP program,” the official name of the stimulus package.
The just-released $47 million is part of the project's second phase. The money will continue preliminary design work and will buy equipment for CMRR labs and the laboratory portion of the project's first phase, a related $199 million office building.
Last month marked the completion of much of that first building, which includes offices for up to 350 people and 19,500 square feet of laboratory space.
Equipment is being installed and Holmes said people will move into offices in the fall of 2011 and start radiological experiments in the laboratory section in 2013.
Mello said labs in the office building more than replace what the old structure had, but Holmes said they're not sufficient for all the work Los Alamos performs.
For example, labs in the office building are allowed to have only 8.4 grams of plutonium, about a thimble's worth, for experiments. Holmes said sample preparation and materials characterization work require larger amounts, making CMRR necessary.
While I agree with Mello on the topic of halting further weapons development efforts, I do not agree that halting weapons work means that one must abandon all work on plutonium and related work. For example, there was news recently about NASA running short on plutonium for long term deep space missions (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/95195-NASA-Running-Low-on-Space-Fuel). Few facilities in the US work on plutonium - while I cannot say what the new LANL facilities will work on, it is irresponsible to immediately associate all work on plutonium at any facility to the weapons program. Without the ability to work in topics related to plutonium, we wouldn't have Voyager, Cassini, or a myriad of projects that yield knowledge for humanity while relying on plutonium that have nothing to do with weapons. If anything, the weapons program has needlessly stigmatized an element that has applications that benefit mankind with a small set of other applications that do not. Only small minds see the set of applications that hurt mankind, ignoring those that increase our knowledge and understanding of the work around us.
ReplyDeleteFlame away, anonymous blogosphere shitheads.
Let us agree that the 238 mission is an important one. Why place this expensive facility at an institution as dysfunctional as LANL?
ReplyDeletePatagonia Crime Scene Plays Role in Nuclear-Security Bid
ReplyDeletehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB125504219290974603.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories
"We want to shift ourselves from a nuclear-weapons complex to a nuclear-security enterprise," says NNSA administrator Thomas D'Agostino, who took the helm of the agency in 2007 and continued under President Barack Obama.
Ironically, while LANL may well be the only place a "new" plutonium facility can be built in the US, it is also probably one of the worst possible places. LANS will screw this one up for sure. In 10 years we, the US taxpayers, will have either a bunch of paper studies, or a 2 billion dollar concrete fiasco that cannot open or do plutonium research. It is rare that I agree with Mr. Mello, but CMRR is a joke.
ReplyDeleteFew people believed the claims made in 2005 on the original LTRS blog that NNSA wanted LANL to become the new Rocky Flats plant.
ReplyDeleteNNSA clearly wants this; Chu seems perfectly happy with the plan; Congress has been bought off; funding is being given the green light.
Are you all beginning to believe it yet, or will it take another 4 1/2 years to sink in?
i thought this was an interesting website...a littleoff topic but funny when compared to other national labs.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.recovery.gov/transparency/pages/home.aspx?ZipCode=87544&
7:22 am: "Few people believed the claims made in 2005 on the original LTRS blog that NNSA wanted LANL to become the new Rocky Flats plant."
ReplyDeleteAnd building CMRR as a replacement for CMR shows this how? No one claimed that CMR was evidence of such a thing.
You guys are full of it. LANL is world class in Plutonium research and has some of world’s best management teams in place for nuclear facility management for facilities such as CMRR. There is no better place in the complex to build this facility. The LANS management team in place to manage this facility is second to none. Please do your research before you post such dribble on this blog.
ReplyDelete"A host of elements for purposes ranging from biomedicine to geology need to be studied, and if Los Alamos wasn't doing pit production, CMRR would be needed for other science, Holmes said."
ReplyDeleteThis statement by Rick Holmes doesn't even pass the "Ha-Ha" test!
It's my understanding that this additional $47 million won't even go for building anything at LANL.
ReplyDeleteIt's being provided so LANS can keep a bunch of construction managers (i.e., Bechtelians) employed at the lab this next year while the CMRR continues to remain in limbo. It's being advertised as money for more "planning". Yeah, right.
Studying the history of Bechtel and the Boston "Big Dig" can be very enlightening...
ReplyDelete-
"Holmes: Behind Swift's Pike pique" (Jan '02)
www.dailynewstranscript.com/
opinions/x1304879577
...Considering the disaster the Big Dig has become, it seems only reasonable to have more professional oversight of the work of the project's managers, the construction giant Bechtel/Parsons Brinkerhoff. The inspector general recommended the same thing - and the Cellucci/Swift Administration tried to get rid of him. Several members of the Mass. congressional delegation have recommended it as well, but Swift thinks it's a bad idea.
Why? Probably because Bechtel doesn't want anyone messing with their cash cow. And Bechtel is renowned for its political clout and its campaign contributions. Because Levy has been on Bechtel's case, Swift and others have been trying to pry him off the Pike board for years. They tried to get Mihos to join the effort, Mihos says, even offering him the lieutenant governor's job just a few weeks before Swift started calling him names and trying to fire him.
Bechtel has plenty of politicians, lobbyists and Big Dig contractors cheering Swift on in her effort to silence Levy and Mihos. Some are motivated by naked self-interest. Others in the Boston business and media establishment - the Globe and Herald have been brutal on the Pike's bad boys - will lash out at anyone who threatens the Hub's long-held Big Dig dream. The money doesn't matter to them. Just get the project built.
-
Mello has no clue what CMRR will be used for. He loves touting "building more weapons" but this is far from the truth. CMRR will house a vault and sorely needed space for analytical capability once the old CMR is shut down. Further, other instrumentation, which is currently used for stockpile certification/surveillance activities will be moved from PF-4 to the new facility.
ReplyDeleteAs the first poster suggested, lets not forget Pu-238 work and a huge portfolio of nonproliferation/materials disposition work where Pu pits are rendered proliferation resistant by chemical processing activities.
My response to Frank- who else is going to do the work? RFETS is shut down, LLNL has deinventoried their Pu facilities (Superblock on the way to shut down), Hanford is shut down, SRS limping along but do not have a working Pu facility. Despite what people post here, NTS doesn't have the capability nor does Pantex. LANL is IT, despite the incompetent management.
"Ironically, while LANL may well be the only place a "new" plutonium facility can be built in the US, it is also probably one of the worst possible places. LANS will screw this one up for sure. In 10 years we, the US taxpayers, will have either a bunch of paper studies, or a 2 billion dollar concrete fiasco that cannot open or do plutonium research. It is rare that I agree with Mr. Mello, but CMRR is a joke."
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to placing a MULTI-billion dollar PDCF facility in Aiken, SC, right on the coastline and subject to hurricanes??? Give me a break.
"LANL is IT, despite the incompetent management." (2:14 PM)
ReplyDeletePlutonium work and incompetent management? Whoa, not a good mix!
Like DAHRT, just think of all the juicy manager promotions and awards that can be milked from CMRR over this next decade or two of LANS planning and eventual construction of this project. It boggles the mind!
ReplyDelete"As opposed to placing a MULTI-billion dollar PDCF facility in Aiken, SC, right on the coastline and subject to hurricanes??? Give me a break."
ReplyDeleteIn your mind, where is Aiken exactly? Because I have it at least 2 hours or 150 mi inland from the coast. Having lived through a few hurricanes myself, I can tell you that the amount of "damage" one will get from a hurricane at that distance is pretty minimal.
You need a nuclear reactor in order to make the Pu 238. That leaves LANL out of the equation!
ReplyDeleteSavannah River DESPERATELY wants a plutonium facility. And they are getting one in the form of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility. They will probably get a second one in the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility if DOE wants to spend another $6B at Savannah River. Too bad that the Pu folks at LANL don't support that type of work.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry 3:25 PM. 2:16 PM seems to be one of the bloggers who claims to know everything about LANL but have never set foot on "Tierra Encantada".
ReplyDeleteRoger that, 8:00pm.
ReplyDeleteIn your mind, where is Aiken exactly? Because I have it at least 2 hours or 150 mi inland from the coast. Having lived through a few hurricanes myself, I can tell you that the amount of "damage" one will get from a hurricane at that distance is pretty minimal.
ReplyDeleteRemember the hurricane Ivan? Pittsuburgh PA was under 16 ft of water. Maybe the winds aren't catastrophic but the flooding can wreak havoc no matter how far inland.
"Too bad that the Pu folks at LANL don't support that type of work."
ReplyDeleteReally? Last time I checked, our team won a large team distinguished performance award for polishing PuO2, which eventually was sent to France, fabbed into MOX fuel and inserted into reactors in SC. DOE nixed this LANL program several years ago. We also have a $32 million dollar program (ARIES), which is the prototype for PDCF. We do all the demonstration and testing in support of this facility.
You obviously don't know what kind of Pu work LANL participates in.
"Don't worry 3:25 PM. 2:16 PM seems to be one of the bloggers who claims to know everything about LANL but have never set foot on "Tierra Encantada".
ReplyDeleteHmm, last time I checked, I've worked at LANL for 12 years.
1. You cannot support the stockpile on 8.4 grams of Pu for analysis.
ReplyDelete2. You cannot support Pu-238 for two reasons. The first is that the Pu-238 equivalent for 8.4 g is approximately 0.3g. Cannot run a single chemical analysis necessary to certify the Pu-238 fuel for NASA. Also, DP excluded all Pu-238 work in CMRR.
3. NNSA tried to retrofit CMR in the mid-90's and gave up after spending $400M.
4. PDCF was originally costed at $800M and it is now up to $4B. If DOE/NNSA could stick to a schedule, then costs wouldn't be so big. At $2.6B for CMRR, I suspect that after several more years of inadequate funding and the "Lets not make a decision" that it will exceed $3B.
5. TA55 was not funded for the necessary $250M in upgrades for that facility, so the possibility of replacing RFETS is very unlikely.
6. Greg Mello should try sticking to the facts!
"Too bad that the Pu folks at LANL don't support that type of work."
ReplyDeleteWow, you are ignorant. Who do you think did the demonstration for work MOX? Ever heard of a little LANL program called ARIES?
All Pu will be gone from LLNL in less than 24 months. I wonder how long they will be around?
ReplyDeletehttp://llnlthetruestory.blogspot.com/2009/10/llnl-de-inventory-project-moves-ahead.html
7:56 am: "DOE nixed this LANL program several years ago."
ReplyDeleteDOE didn't "nix" the MOX LTA program. It simply fulfilled all of it's milestones (early and under budget) and therefore ended. Imagine that.
Really? Last time I checked, our team won a large team distinguished performance award for polishing PuO2, which eventually was sent to France, fabbed into MOX fuel and inserted into reactors in SC.
ReplyDeleteThe same MOX fuel that "failed due to abnormal fuel assembly performance" causing Duke Energy to withdraw from the program? Really now, isn't that about the same as crowing over an award you received for DARHT?
Duke dropped its contract with Areva largely on schedule grounds - MOX fuel won't be in production at the SRS/Areva plant until 2016. MOX has been burning in European power reactors for two decades already.
ReplyDelete"Really...our team won a large team distinguished performance award" - 7:56 am
ReplyDeleteAre you really that naive, 7:56? The distinguished performance awards are handed out like candy. They're almost meaningless. Like 1:10 points out, these same awards have constantly been handed out to teams for DARHT "performance". Get a clue.
Maybe so, 12:13, but remember the original contention was "Too bad that the Pu folks at LANL don't support that type of work."
ReplyDelete"That type" being MOX and PDCF.
I guess excessive fuel assembly growth is not a problem for European reactors...
ReplyDeleteDude(S)-
ReplyDeleteWe didn't make the fuel assembly, Cogema did. LANL polished and shipped the PuO2 to France. I cannot comment on the reliability of the fuel assembly and it has no bearing on LANL's performance.
"DOE didn't "nix" the MOX LTA program. It simply fulfilled all of it's milestones (early and under budget) and therefore ended. Imagine that."
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that MOX LTA finished ahead of schedule and behind budget. For all those making fun of my statement about winning a DPA, mock if you must, but we were getting ready to finish packaging and ship when Herr Nanos shut down the laboratory. We were under a tight schedule to get the material out the doors to France as Cadarache (if I recall correctly) was scheduled to shut down permanently. The facility was only keeping their doors open to receive LANL's oxide for making pellets.
LANL needed special exemption to finish and Nanos actually came to watch us load the final containers for shipping. This in itself was a miracle considering the scrutiny the lab was under; however, the large amount of material produced in a small time span,under not so-friendly facility conditions at TA-55, was a heroic effort by those involved. So, if this was handed to us like "candy" then so be it.
I worked on MOX LTA for its duration and the Pu polishing program was going to be a repeat customer as a supplier to MFFF in order to "prime the pump" so to speak. We were in the process of making upgrades to the aqueous processing room. Indeed, DOE was instrumental at zeroing out the program in order to save money.
...and regarding the statement about failed fuel assemblies, Cogema made the assemblies, not LANL. If I heard correctly, the failure was due to a cladding problem. How this translates to the worthiness of LANL's DPA, I have no idea.
ReplyDelete"the same MOX fuel that "failed due to abnormal fuel assembly performance" causing Duke Energy to withdraw from the program?" Really now, isn't that about the same as crowing over an award you received for DARHT?
ReplyDelete8:04 am is correct. Duke withdrew from Areva because of schedule concerns not due to failed fuel assemblies. Cockadoodle doo!
I'm not an expert in these things. Is polishing PuO2 about the same as polishing a turd?
ReplyDelete